"Sabbath Reforms" Response

By: John Spellman



Introduction

A good friend of mine, whom I had discussed the Sabbath with some time ago sent me an article entitle “Lesson 13: Sabbath Reforms (August 25, 2013)” from International Bible Studies. In the article, the author states discusses the reforms of Nehemiah and in his address of the Sabbath came to the conclusion that the principle of the Sabbath still exists but the literal day is no longer binding and he seems to suggest that to consider it binding for all Christians would be “legalistic”.

After thoroughly reading and annotating this lesson I am inclined to agree with the author on many points that were made during the lesson, while disagreeing with the final position taken on the binding nature of the Sabbath. However, before addressing the points of difference I would like to address several points of agreement that common ground may be established.



Points of Agreement:

First, the author stated that Nehemiah: “… saw a clear link between the troubles the nation was experiencing and the violation of sabbath observances. More disaster was likely if the profanity was not halted.” (62)

This statement agrees with the view that the Sabbath was indefinitely binding and mandatory in the Old Testament. It was a serious matter that had major consequences for disobedience. The lesson also has daily Bible readings (page 61) that encourage readers to read the commandments and selected Bible passages about the Sabbath although it excludes Genesis and Exodus 20 which I thought would have been an enhancement to the lesson; although, both the 4th Commandment and the Genesis reference are alluded to in Exodus 31.

Secondly, the author states correctly that Nehemiah’s concerns: “… should not be linked to, or confused with, the hypocritical Sabbath straightjackets the Pharisees tried to strap on Israel in Jesus’ day. Please note carefully that it was the hypocritical, self-serving attitude on the Sabbath observance to which Jesus objected, chiding the Pharisee, for wanting to burden the people with regulations they themselves did not engage.”

In most discussions of the Sabbath / Sunday question, there is difficulty getting those in favor of Sunday to recognize this point. Therefore, I commend the author for the accuracy of the aforesaid statement. Most people confuse Jesus’ actions and statements in Mark 2:23-27 and Mark 3:1-6 to be in conflict with the Sabbath or to nullify its importance. They use these texts incorrectly as a means to say Jesus violated the Sabbath, therefore the Sabbath was not binding. This author does not make that mistake. The author correctly states that Jesus was dealing with hypocrisy in how the Sabbath was treated during His time on earth. Jesus kept the Sabbath, as did other Jews.

On a side note, to solidify the author’s point, I would add that: the New Testament era/dispensation could not have begun until after the cross. All of the ceremonies and rites were practiced by both Jesus and the apostles up until after the cross. If Jesus had sinned in regard to the keeping of the Sabbath during the duration of His time as a human being, He could not have been the Messiah prophesied—the spotless lamb of God. One of the prerequisites for being the Messiah was that the anointed had to be without spot and without blemish. The Christ had to obey God’s laws in every respect to get victory where mankind had fallen. This was the only way to accomplish our salvation. (See Romans 5:18-21 and 2 Cor. 5:21)

It is a crucial point that while Jesus lived as a human being, He was not at liberty to break any of the commandments. If He had done so, we could not be saved through His obedience and covered with His righteousness as the above texts state. The scripture makes it clear that Christ was obedient. The question is, obedient to what? God’s laws and requirements! However, this did not subject him to man-made laws, requirements, and traditions. These man made rules brought Jesus into conflict with the religious leaders of his day. Christ never violated the Sabbath, but He objected to its misapplication.

A third point of agreement was the author’s statement that: “The principle of Sabbath was for rest and worshiping God their Creator, the fourth commandment. Jesus summed up the matter best when he stated that the Sabbath was made for man and not the reverse. Nehemiah’s protest was therefore on good ground.”

I agree with this statement, although there was one crucial element to the Sabbath that was left out—to be addressed later. Perhaps the author was unaware. However, generally I agree with this statement. The Sabbath was made for man, not the reverse. The Sabbath is about rest and worshipping our Creator.

Last, and most important, the author stated, “On questions dealing with the Sabbath observance, always remember that our authority must be Jesus. All other authorities and experts must be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.”

I whole heartedly agree with this statement. This was my motivation in writing this response to the lesson study produced by International Bible Studies. If we truly allow Jesus to be the authority, I believe there is sufficient evidence that points to the binding nature of the Sabbath. However, no one should feel coaxed or coerced into such a belief. By prayerfully searching out the truth, I believe many will find conviction and be convinced of the necessity of the Sabbath day in our post-modern world.

It’s always good practice to establish points of agreement in an open discussion upon a topic of interest and concern. For me, the Sabbath / Sunday question is about truth. Scripture states that God must be worshipped in Spirit and in truth! Therefore, I want it to be understood that I thoroughly read and investigated the claims of article I was sent. I did not haphazardly browse it; but rather, took each point seriously and compared the claims with scriptural evidence. I read the lesson itself and the associated scriptures. It is my hope that those who read this response will do the same.



Points of Disagreement

With our common ground established, we now come to the points of disagreement. The first point of disagreement comes from page 63: “However, the legalistic observance of a particular day is unnecessary.” In this statement the author assumes that to observe a particular day for worship is “legalistic”. The term “legalistic” is used subjectively. In order for us to have an understanding, we must first have an agreed upon definition of legalism.

Clearly, the author and I both agree that Jesus was not against the Sabbath in His address of the Pharisees. He understood it to be a command of God. I agreed with the author that Jesus was against the hypocritical nature of the way the Sabbath was observed by the Jewish clergy. This hypocrisy did not include the observance of the Sabbath on a particular day; rather, it was about the man-made traditions added to the command of God which God never intended. Legalism can never be defined as keeping one of God’s commandments. Legalism is always adding to God’s commandments what God did not intend. Therefore, to say that keeping the Sabbath was legalism because believers kept it on the day that God specified would make both Jesus and the apostolic church a bunch of legalists. They all kept the 7th Day Sabbath.

However, I do understand that, traditionally, Sunday observers have always used texts like Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14 to say that the Sabbath was done away with. If this were the case, as would be the case with practices like circumcision, then it would be legalistic to keep the Sabbath and advocate that one should do so because the requirements would no longer be required by God. Therefore, the author would be correct only if the Sabbath were no longer binding. If it is binding, the keeping of the Sabbath could not be considered legalism. We shall discuss the binding nature of the Sabbath later on.

Thus, we should first agree that legalism can best be defined as adding requirements to God’s commands and / or man commanding what God no longer requires. Thus, keeping the Sabbath on the Sabbath day could not be considered legalism before Christ because God required it. The author even states that Nehemiah associated the disaster and punishment they experienced with the violation of the Sabbath. Therefore, it is established that the Sabbath was never a man-inspired commandment. The only way it could be considered legalism is if it were no longer binding and somehow nullified. Consequently, unless sufficient evidence can be provided that thoroughly demonstrates the nullifying of the Sabbath, it cannot be considered legalism to keep it or to teach that it should be kept by believers. Hopefully, we can agree on this point.

The statement: “However, the legalistic observance of a particular day is unnecessary”, is now subjective. If a particular day has been prescribed by God, it can’t be considered legalism. However, the statement could still hold true if an individual observes a day prescribed by God in a legalistic manner—adding to the commandment what God has not required. I take issue with the statement because it incorrectly assumes that the observance of a particular day is not required by God; but rather, is man-driven. This is a claim I think Sunday observers should revisit and research in light of important evidence.

I do agree with the statement that, “we should observe the Sabbath principle without getting strapped down in a legalistic observance.” (64) However, the Sabbath principle cannot be observed when worshippers ignore the day required by the God who created it and Jesus who is Lord over it.

Another statement that I disagreed with was, “Observance of the sabbath principle through our worshipping on Sunday is quite acceptable to God.” (64)

Nowhere in all of scripture can one text be found that allows for the transfer of the solemnity of the Sabbath to Sunday. This statement is factually inaccurate scripturally. If this is the author’s opinion, I can respect it as an opinion I do not share. However, if this statement was made to be a statement of fact, it is refuted by the evidence of scripture and Jesus’ practice.



Can our differing viewpoints be reconciled?

My interest in writing this response is not simply to hammer the reader over the head with my beliefs. We each have our opposing views and evidences to support those views. However, as a Christian community, I don’t see why we can’t have opposing views on a doctrinal topic, yet still have a respectful, open, and candid discussion about this matter. At the end of the day, my aim is for all that I say and do to lead souls closer to Jesus. Though we have differences in opinion, our end goal is the same. Thus, debating would only serve for both sides to put across details that lead to no convictions of the heart. It is my hope that you will carefully and prayerfully consider the response that will hereafter be presented. Search out the claims that I make and honestly consider them.

If we take this approach to the topic in question, we can successfully reconcile our opposing views. I believe that this approach will lead all who read these words, and do the research, to a conviction of the truth of the Sabbath day. But were that not possible, you would, at the very least, have a clearer understanding of where I (and many other Sabbath keepers) am coming from. Upon this topic, there is so much misunderstanding of what both sides are actually saying, that it ruins the important discussion we should be having.

If you find my information to be in error, I would appreciate a point by point response so I can re-investigate or re-explain. It’s important to be accurate, and I would not intentionally relay any incorrect information. However, I have read quite a bit on the subject, and I am confident that the information presented will be accurate.



The evidence:

A. Colossians 2:16

First, let’s address the “proof texts” used to suggest that the Sabbath is no longer binding. The most popular is Colossians 2:16. Historically, Sunday observers have used this text as conclusive evidence that the Sabbath is no longer binding.

“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:”(Col 2:16)

The chief reason for this is because of the phrase “Sabbath days” used at the end of verse 16. However, research has shown conclusively that this is a misunderstanding and misreading of the text. There is exegetical, linguistic, structural, syntactical, and inter-textual evidence that strongly suggests that the Seventh Day Sabbath is not referred to here.

Anyone wishing to examine the research upon this subject should read Ron du Preez’s “Judging the Sabbath: Discovering What Can’t Be Found in Colossians 2:16”. In the book, he extensively lays out his research and goes through every single text in which the Sabbath is mentioned or alluded to. Ron du Preez is a respected Biblical scholar; however, as the author of the article I am critiquing stated, It’s all about the authority of Jesus—not men. Yet, discussing du Preez’s research will be helpful to layout some Biblical facts in our discussion of the Sabbath question. I would encourage Christians to read his book and compare his research with what you read in the Bible and the evidence we see in the life of Jesus.

We can agree that “Lesson 13: Sabbath Reforms” and “Judging the Sabbath” were written by men. However, when we compare the teachings with scripture, we’ll find one to be more harmonious with the Bible. In the interest of time, I will summarize the research and do my best to make it plain and convincing for the reader—but, I encourage the readers to do further research and to read the literature for themselves.

When one analyzes the use of the term “Sabbath” in scripture we find that there were different types of “sabbaths”. They were not on the same level, but all were observed in ancient Israel. Ron du Preez’s research demonstrates that in every instance in which the term “sabbath” is used there is a linguistic marker or context clue which demonstrates and makes it easier for the reader to tell which sabbath is being referred to. This is true both in Greek and in Hebrew—in the Old and New Testament. Additionally, we have both the Greek manuscripts and Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament. The Septuagint testifies that the use of the linguistic and context markers were maintained when the Hebrew Old Testament was translated to Greek. The practice of using these linguistic markers continued into the writing of the New Testament by the apostles.

This point is a fact. Upon looking at the appendix in du Preez’s book, one will see a layout of all the scriptures containing the word “Sabbath” (as well as when the original Greek word was translated to week(s) ). In each case you will see that every time the word is used, a linguistic / contextual marker can be seen that indicates what kind of sabbath is being referred to. The book contains a layout of all Greek uses of the term sabbath and all Hebrew uses. I should also add that the author makes mention of the Hebrew and Greek words, each time they are used, not only when they are translated “sabbath” in the English language. Therefore, this research is factual and comprehensive.

In the interest of keeping things simple, so the average reader can understand, the facts are as follows: any time the Seventh Day Sabbath is mentioned the definite article or some other identifiable linguistic marker is used. Based on the context it is easy to tell when the author is referring to the Seventh Day Sabbath. On the other hand, there were other sabbaths required in the law of Moses. To distinguish these from Seventh Day Sabbaths, linguistic markers also accompanied the use of these terms in Greek and Hebrew.

When words like “My”, “The”, “Day”, “Holy”, and “Keep” appear they refer to the Seventh Day Sabbath. In preceding texts the contexts also makes it clear. There were also markers for the other sabbaths which were cyclical and for the sabbatical year.

The Greek word “heorte” and Hebrew word “hag” are only used in scripture in reference to pilgrimages: there were only 3 pilgrimages in ancient Israel. It is never used in reference to the monthly sabbath ceremonies or the weekly Seventh Day Sabbath. It can only refer to Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles—not a sabbath. This fact is stated because “heorte” is the greek word used in Col 2:16 translated “an holiday”.

Because of the English (KJV) translation of the word “heorte” to “holiday” we read the text thinking that the first word in the tri-part phrase, “holiday, new moon, sabbath days” refers to all the ceremonial holidays while the last word specifically refers to the Seventh Day Sabbath. However, this is factually inaccurate. The term holiday refers to the 3 yearly pilgrimages. The New King James translates “heorte” into “festival” which allows the reader to correctly understand that by “festival” the 3 yearly pilgrimages are intended—not the other holidays.

This is a fact held true not by only Sabbath keepers, but by other Biblical scholars including: Theodore Laetsch and Carl Friedrich Keil (who held that “hag” was translated “heorte” when the OT Bible was translated to Greek).

To simplify: in the tri-part phrase, it is a fact that “holiday” or “festival” (depending on whichever version you’re using) cannot be interpreted as all the Biblical holidays because the Greek word being translated only applies to the 3 pilgrimage festivals and is never used in another way in any text of scripture. To fact check this, use a concordance and locate all the texts that use the Hebrew “hag” or the Greek “heorte” and you’ll see this information to be true.

Even if I’m right about that, what does that have to do with the sabbath mentioned in Colossians 2:16? Did I anticipate you’re question? It is a great question! If the ceremonial sabbaths were not mentioned by the phrase “holiday/festival” and they are not included in the term “new moon” that leaves us to question what the term “sabbath days” means. Does it mean all the sabbaths from the weekly to the monthly? Or is it specific to either the monthly or the weekly?

In scripture, there are linguistic markers that determine which sabbath is being referred to. In the Greek of this passage, the markers indicate that the sabbaths referred to here are not Seventh Day Sabbaths. This text most closely resembles Hosea 2:11, from which Paul is most likely quoting in Colossians 2:16. In Hosea 2:11 ceremonial Sabbaths are referred to and not Seventh Day Sabbaths as indicated by the marker “your sabbaths” or “her sabbaths”. Typically God refers to Seventh Day Sabbaths as “My sabbaths”, “Sabbaths of the Lord”, etc. Again, you’ll need to see the research to know that this is true—however, the research is very conclusive and solid.

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that the “sabbath days” mentioned in Colossians 2:16 refers to the Seventh Day Sabbath. To the contrary, it is in reference to the sabbatical holidays of the Law of Moses.

Now, I know what you’re thinking! Aren’t they all the same thing? Couldn’t they be talking about all the sabbaths together under the term “sabbath days”? Is there really a distinction between the sabbaths aside from when they occur? Has the man who wrote this response lost his mind in making the point that there were two distinct types of sabbaths?

Examine Leviticus 23. However, before you do, we need to understand a Biblical concept. This concept is held true by all theologians, but the common Bible reader may not understand it. This is not a denominational concept, we can all agree on the use of this principle.

Scripture uses a “chiastic structure” as a literary device. This is crucial and, I believe, the misunderstanding of this concept is one of the chief reasons why Sunday observers and Sabbath keepers don’t agree on this topic. Our understanding, or lack thereof, of this Biblical literary technique is one of the major reasons why some misunderstand how to correctly interpret the passages about the Sabbath.



The Chiasm

Simply put, the chaism generally works as follows. First scripture says something. Then it gives some background information often repeating a past event to emphasize or make a distinction with something adding support for something it wants to say about the first point. Finally it repeats the first statement with greater, usually newer, details. This structure makes it difficult to understand prophecies in Daniel and Revelation especially. However, it can also cause some confusion in regard to how we read Genesis.

Ask members of your Church to read Genesis 1-3 and then ask them when Eve was created. More than likely, confusion will be wrought. This is because Genesis 1:27-28 states that God created man (as in “mankind”) on day 6 and created “them” as “male and female”. Yet we don’t read the story about Adam being put to sleep until later on in chapter 2 chronologically after the story of creation week.

This is where the chiasm comes into play. Genesis 1 summarizes creation week. It is the first part of the chiasm. Chapter 2:4 introduces the purpose of chapter 1 (declaring the origins of the world) and verse 5 onward goes back in time to creation week giving more information about what, specifically, God did. If we didn’t understand the chiasm I would have some questions:

1. When was Eve created? Scripture says the male and female were created on day 7.

2. When were the trees created? Genesis 2:9 talks about God growing trees, but so does Genesis 1:11. How do we account for trees being mentioned in chapter 1 and in chapter 2 if the chapters are chronological?

Clearly, everything in scripture is not always written chronologically. The chiasm is typically the literary structure used to convey events. This understanding will help us to correctly interpret two major passages of scripture that cause polarization in the Sabbath / Sunday question. For more information about the chiastic literary structure, you’ll be able to find some useful information about it on the internet. However, I don’t anticipate any disagreement on this point. I stated it for those who may not be familiar with the principle for the purposes of understanding my upcoming statements.

Back to Leviticus 23

Now that we have some understanding of the chiasm you’ll see it clearly in this chapter. I will highlight it for you for visual purposes. I also broke the passage apart using spacing so the reader can visually see the chiastic structure used (assuming the reader doesn’t have access to a color printer).

Clearly in verses 1 and 2 the writer of Leviticus introduces the subject. To paraphrase: “We’re going to talk about the feasts of the Lord”. However in verse 3, the writer repeats the 4th commandment as already commanded on Mt. Sinai with God’s own words and written on the tables of stone.

Verse 3 does not command the Sabbath again, but repeats what they already knew. This is for the purpose emphasizing that these commands that were about to follower were distinct from the 4th commandment.

By verse 4, the writer then says: “now these are the feasts of the Lord” and begins to list the details of them from verse 5 down to verse 36. If the Sabbath were part of the feasts, it would have been listed together with the other feasts. Moses has an interruption to the train of thought in verses 3 and 4, repeating the fourth commandment and then going back to the issue of feasts rather than lumping them together.

Specifically, in verse 1 he says “Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts ”. Then in verse 4, “These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons”. Why does Moses start by saying he wants to talk about the feasts, pause to talk about the Seventh Day Sabbath, then reintroduce the idea that he wants to discuss feasts if the Seventh Day Sabbath and the feasts were part of the same thing?

Clearly, there was a distinction in the sense that they already had the 4th Commandment. They were now receiving additional commands written in the law of Moses. However, by the end of list of commands and duties, the writer of Leviticus summarizes what he stated from verses 4 to 36 stating, “These are the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, every thing upon his day”. (Lev 23:37)

Now we can see the chiastic structure in which the text encapsulates the commands from verse 4 to 37. In verse 4, the text introduces that we’re going to be talking about feasts / holy convocations. Verse 37 ends the discussion of feasts / holy convocations. This much is made clear. However, if the reader still wasn’t sure, verse 38 indicates that the holy convocations mentioned from verse 5 to 36 were “beside” the Sabbaths of the Lord! The Hebrew word used for beside can also be translated “separate from” or “apart from” drawing clear distinction.

Thus, the conclusive evidence shows—and the readers can see for themselves—that the festival sabbaths were separate and distinct from Seventh Day Sabbaths. The text makes clear distinction and separation between the two both in words and with literary device. The Seventh Day Sabbath was commanded by the God on Mt. Sinai with His audible voice and then written on tablets of stone. The other holy convocations were given to Moses and written in books. They were ceremonial in nature and prefigured Christ. These commands were placed on the side of the ark, while the 10 Commandments were placed inside of the ark.

Leviticus 23: 39 even uses the term “sabbath” showing that these special days were considered to be sabbaths, yet distinct from the 10 commandment Sabbath of the Lord! Coupled with Ron du Preez’s research regarding the linguistic and contextual evidence for how “sabbath” is used in both the old and new testament—the evidence is clear: there were two distinct kinds of sabbaths, the sabbaths in Leviticus were not on the same level with the 10 commandment sabbath, linguistic and contextual markers are used in scripture to indicate which sabbath is being referenced in order to avoid confusion of the reader, and the sabbaths mentioned in Col 2:16 were clearly referring to the ritualistic sabbaths of Leviticus 23 in verses 4-36.

It is not possible to derive that the Seventh Day Sabbath is mentioned in Col 2:16. To say so is factually in accurate. Other evidence that testifies to this fact includes reading verses 14 through 17 of Colossians 2. Verse 14 gives us a context in which Paul states that his accompanying remarks deal with the “blotting out of the handwriting of ordinances” (Greek: dogma). Ephesians 2:15 points out that these ordinances (dogma) were a law of commandments. Clearly, this is a reference to the handwritten law of Moses that was nailed to the cross. The “moral law” was still considered by the apostles to be binding for Christians.

Most Sunday observers argue that the 10 Commandments and the “Law of Moses” were part of the same law and were not separate and distinct. Often, references to Deuteronomy 5 are mentioned to state that the 10 Commandments were commanded and a part of the Law of Moses making them one in the same. However, an understanding of the chiastic structure proves this notion factually inaccurate.

In the ark and the side of the ark

The book of Deuteronomy was written in chiastic form much like other scriptural references. Like Leviticus 23’s chiasm, portions of Deuteronomy repeat already given information before addressing the main point it wants to address. Deuteronomy 1-5 repeats the history of the exodus and God’s faithfulness to the children of Israel. By chapter 5 it recounts the giving of the 10 commandments. However up to this point, the Law of Moses had not yet been given. The first commandment is not given until chapter 6. Because people view chapters 1-5 as part of the sequence of commandments given, they reason that the whole thing is the same law. However, when we consider the chiasm and recognize chapters 1-5 as the historical background indicating why the additional set of commandments had to be given: doors and windows of understanding begin to open up.

First, let’s find out whether the claim that “chapters 1-5 are the background and chapter 6 begins the actual commandment giving” is true. Deuteronomy 1:1 points out that the words recorded are a recollection of the speech Moses gave. In this speech Moses recounts the history of how they got to this point. The history continues through chapter 3 where Moses recounts why God was angry with him and how Joshua was charged to be the new leader after he, Moses, would die. In chapter 4, Moses charges that the people should obey God, and he recounts why God was giving them a law. He starts speaking about the 10 Commandments and how God gave them only 10 commandments audibly in their hearing. However, in several places within this chapter, Moses states that he was commanded to give the people additional statutes and judgments (besides the 10 commanded by God Himself). These commandments, according to Moses, would be contained in “…this law, which I set before you this day…”. (Deut. 4:8)

Clearly, Moses didn’t set the 10 commandments before the people that day. They already knew and had the stone codified law. What law was Moses setting before the people that particular day? It was the additional commandments! The one’s contained in “this book of the law” we know as Deuteronomy. In fact the word Deuteronomy comes from two greek words: “Deutero” and “Nomos” which means “Second-Law” literarlly.

The book of Dueteronomy is aware of itself, stating in several passages, “this book of the law”. By the end of the commandment giving, Moses states that “this book of the law” must be placed on the side of the ark for a testimony while the 10 commandments were located inside of the ark. This drew clear distinction between God’s stone codified law and Moses’ handwritten law of commandments contained in ordinances.

In chapter 5 Moses repeats the 10 Commandments and the story of how they came to be known to the children of Israel. Then, towards the end of chapter the reason for these additional commandments is given: the people said, “don’t let God speak directly to us anymore, lest we die”. Therefore, Moses had to approach God, obtain the additional commandments, statutes, and judgments and teach them to the people. However, the 10 Commandments were a complete set. When God stopped speaking, the Israelites then told Moses that if God had anything else to say, let God tell him (Moses) and they would listen to Moses. However, it should be noted that when the tablets of stone were received only 10 Commandments were written on them. The other commandments were handwritten by Moses and taught by Moses after he received instruction from God.

Chapter 1:1-5 serve as an introduction to the new set of commandments and start off this concept as a topic for discussion. The rest of chapter 1, down through chapter 5, serve as a repetition of the history of how God has led His people before reintroducing the topic for discussion in chapter 6 and elaborating with details.

Deuteronomy 6:1 introduces the start of the new set of commandments and begins with the introductory phrase: “Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:”. Afterward the commandments begin and continue through several chapters. This demonstrates a clear chiastic structure.

Simply Put: The commandments on the side of the ark were different from the commandments within the ark. The Seventh Day Sabbath was separate and distinct from the sabbaths of the law of Moses. Both the textual evidence and the Biblical literary devices (chiasms) make this clear. The context of Colossians 2:16 starting at verse 14 make it clear that Paul is referring to commandments that were handwritten and were a law of commandments contained in ordinances (Eph. 2:15). These laws were also “against us”, thus echoing Moses’ statement that the law he gave them “this day” should be placed on the side of the ark for a witness against the children of Israel. (Deut. 31:26)

The 10 Commandments don’t meet the qualifications to be: handwritten, a law of commandments contained in ordinances, and purposed as a witness against the Israelites. This was the clear context of Colossians 2:16 when we start at verse 14. Additionally, there were not new moons, festivals, or commandments dictating eating and drinking (or meat and drink offerings) in the 10 Commandments. These did exist in the book of the law.

Consequently, the linguistic evidence, textual evidence, context, and other data we have simply do not allow for rendering Colossians 2:16 to be referring to the Seventh Day Sabbath. One cannot use this text to support the nullifying of the fourth commandment or an attempt to “spiritualize” its requirement of a specific day of worship. Those who claim so, are taking the text out of context. I do not assume this is done purposely, at first glance, the text would make anyone think Paul was referring to the Seventh Day Sabbath; however, when we look at the context and the use of the original language, this is not so.

The casual Bible reader may be confused by all this, but to anyone having a working knowledge of in depth Bible study, concordances, and Biblical literary technique, there is no denying the validity of the fact that Colossians 2:16 does not and cannot refer to the Seventh Day Sabbath. There is simply no textual evidence that supports such a claim.

For those reading who are beginners: you should still be able to follow along with my summary even if you don’t necessarily grasp the data about the chiasms and the Greek / Hebrew.

B. Romans 14:5-6

With Colossians 2:16 analyzed there is no direct reference in scripture which invalidates the keeping of the Seventh Day Sabbath. There are no references in scripture which invalidate any of the 10 Commandments—God’s moral law. Most observers of Sunday would not consider invalidating the other 9 commands: only the 4th comes into question. Yet, clearly, Colossians proves that a specific set of laws were nailed to the cross—not the ones declared by God Himself audibly from Sinai. Thus, the Sabbath Day is still binding for all Christians.

The second text the author of the Sunday school lesson suggests is Romans 14:5-6. This will be our next subject. This reference is likely referring to Jewish festivals or fasting days. There were other additional Jewish holidays, not prescribed by scripture, which Jewish people held in high esteem. For example, Hanukah was never expressly commanded by God; yet, up to the present, many Jewish believers keep it. Romans 14:5-6 would not be a reference to the Sabbath and does not take sides in regard to whether a day is done away or still binding.

Looking at the context of Romans 14, verse 1 indicates that Paul is discussing “doubtful disputations”. There was no reason for there to be controversy over the Sabbath. Paul stated that the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” was nailed the cross. He believed in and upheld the 10 Commandments. The Jews of his time also believed in the 4th command; thus, there would be no controversy over this issue with them. Several scriptural references state that Paul taught the gentiles on Sabbaths in the synagogues. The gentiles also kept the Sabbath. In fact, Sunday worship as an institutionalized concept didn’t begin with the apostolic church.

Therefore, no evidence suggests that Romans 14 is a reference to the Sabbath. It was not a doubtful disputation.

What would cause controversy, however, was the new position taken on festivals and other extra Biblical Jewish holidays and fast days. This is evidenced by other Christian scholars including John Wesley, Adam Clarke, and Albert Barnes. All stated that the disputation was over “ceremonial sabbaths” or Jewish festivals and fast days. Thus, it’s not just me saying that these texts are not a reference to the Seventh Day Sabbath. In fact the Sabbath is not mentioned anywhere in the chapter.

The evidence shows that the scriptures given in support of the claim in favor of the nullifying of the Sabbath Day are not accurate and were not used in their proper context. For beginning readers, the words of the text are misleading once they’ve been instructed to read these texts in a particular manner not taking under consideration their context and other textual evidence.

I agree that scholarship should be taken as a grain of salt and that the words of Jesus must be held as authority; however, research and digging deeper does help us to understand the words of Jesus in a clear and more accurate manner. However, excluding all the research presented above, it was Jesus who said the following:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. ” (Matthew 5:17-20)

If we lay aside the scholarship and focus only on the words of Jesus, Himself, what conclusion can we come to in light of this passage from Matthew 5? Clearly, Jesus believed in the validity of the 10 Commandments and magnified them throughout chapter 5. He advocated for even the least of the 10. If we, therefore, consider the words of Jesus (whom the article says must be our authority in this matter) coupled with the evidence of scholarship (as I summarized above) what conclusion can we logically, reasonably, and prayerfully come to?

The Sunday school lesson states: “Those of us who worship on Sunday have no reason to fear or feel condemnation…” Yet, Jesus states that those who break and teach others to break even the “least” of the commandments would be considered “least” in the kingdom of heaven. How then, do we reconcile Sunday observance and teach the nullifying of the Sabbath? The Sunday school lesson is in contradiction with the Biblical narrative, specifically where Jesus is the orator; yet, it correctly tells the reader that Jesus’ words should be authority above all other authorities and experts. How does one explain this with such conclusive evidence?

We could get into other Biblical passages: Galatians 4:4-10 and Hebrews 4 providing an exegetical study proving what we already found with Colossians 2; however, I will save this for another article and address only the information presented in the Sunday school lesson by International Bible Studies.

Does A Day Really Matter?

With the passages attempting to refute the Sabbath discussed we now come back to two major questions. Is the Sabbath still binding? Does the day really make a difference?

The author of this lesson suggests that the Sabbath, at least in principle, is binding. The author does not invalidate or claim that the Sabbath as a whole is done away. However, the author does claim that the specific day is not required. It is suggested that believers can choose any day and that when the ritualistic requirements of the Sabbath were nailed to the cross, so was the mandate of a specific day. Thus, the author agrees that the 4th commandment must still be kept, but the author is indifferent about the specific day.

The author, and I, can agree that there is no command in scripture that invalidates the fourth commandment. Our discussion must therefore be centered on whether a specific day is required and what exactly was nailed to the cross. Since the author and I agree that the Sabbath is still relevant, in general, I will not belabor the point by providing evidence for what we have already found agreement.

A. What was nailed to the cross?

As discussed earlier, the hand written law of commandments contained in ordinances was nailed to the cross. It was these commandments that contained rituals to be performed on the sabbath, the ceremonial sabbaths, the festivals, the new moons, and the daily ministration in the mornings and evenings. These commands also contained rituals regarding circumcision and other Jewish rites. Invalidating this law would not nullify the day of the Sabbath. It does, however, do away with the rituals performed on it. The fourth commandment does not specify any particular duty to be performed on the Sabbath other than “keep it holy” and cessation from work. Thus the “day” itself was not part of the ritual but part of the moral law.

No command or statement in scripture states that the Sabbath day was done away with or nullified in importance. The texts we investigated earlier which seemed to state that were found to be taken out of context, though not intentionally. Therefore, Sunday observers are still left with the problem of not having any textual evidence to support the nullifying of the specific day especially when this particular author states that the Sabbath, as a general principle, is still binding. If the day was prescribed in the “book of the law” and not merely repeated there (as we covered earlier), then author’s claims would be correct. However, day was commanded by God audibly, codified in stone with other moral laws (of which we all agree are still binding), and then repeated during a historical recount in the book of the law. Thus, if we understand that only the law of commandments contained in ordinances was abolished, we still have a binding Sabbath in the Decalogue.

B. Does the day matter?

To answer this question we must first address some misconceptions about the Sabbath that will clear up the understanding of whether or not the specific day matters. As mentioned in the very beginning of my response, there was an additional element to the Sabbath that was not included when the author of the lesson described the purpose of the Sabbath.

The author’s states that: “The principle of Sabbath was for rest and worshiping God their Creator, the fourth commandment. Jesus summed up the matter best when he stated that the Sabbath was made for man and not the reverse. Nehemiah’s protest was therefore on good ground.” (62)

In this passage the author correctly states that the Sabbath is about rest, worship, and keeping the fourth commandment. One could argue that a person can rest and worship on any day of the week. However, the author leaves out a crucial part of Sabbath keeping: Creation!

The Sabbath is and always has been a memorial of Creation week. It acknowledges God as the author of Creation. When we go back to creation week (Genesis 1-2) we find that God created the world in six days. Afterward, He rested on the seventh day. Genesis 2:3 states that God specifically blessed and sanctified the seventh day because He rested on that particular day.

“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 2:3)

Clearly the Sabbath was instituted at creation. The fourth commandment only reminds believers to “remember” to “keep it holy” not to make it holy as if it were not holy before. What made the Sabbath holy was that during creation week, God blessed and sanctified a particular day of the week. He commanded the Israelites to remember this fact when He brought them out of Egypt.

Thus, “Sabbath” as a concept, by itself, is not holy, but the particular day God blessed, sanctified, and called the Sabbath was made holy in creation. Clearly, this is the 7th Day of the week (Saturday) as witnessed by the calendar and the testimony of history as well as the Jewish people God commanded to remember it. The evidence is conclusive that Saturday was the specific day that God blessed on the seventh day of creation week. There is much evidence that supports this fact and virtually no evidence against it. Even the changing of the calendar did not alter the creation weekly cycle.

If God blessed the seventh day itself, then the Sabbath day is not made holy by man’s worship or by the commandment that states people should remember it. The Sabbath day (Saturday) is holy because God blessed and sanctified it (the day) particularly. Thus, even if men chose not to keep it, the day would be holy regardless of what mankind chooses to do. Even Israelite worship on the Sabbath, thousands of years into the future from creation week, did not make the day holy. The commandment itself expresses this point:

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” (Exodus 20: 8-11)

Notice the commandment doesn’t say “Keep the sabbath”; it says, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” A few points can be drawn from this statement. First, it doesn’t command us to remember the concept of “Sabbath”, but to remember, specifically, “the Sabbath day”. This is a specific reference to the Sabbath Day of creation week that God blessed and sanctified. Second, the term “remember” implies that God was not introducing something new but was requiring attention to something already in existence—in this instance, since Creation! Third, the phrase “keep it holy” (KJV) suggests that it’s already holy to begin with. Keeping it implies respecting and maintaining the standard of holiness that was already preset during Creation week. Thus, the Sabbath day is holy even without man. During Creation week, it was made for man (as Jesus stated) on a particular day designated by God for remembering Creation and the God of Creation.

Arguably, one could say, “we can remember creation every day of the week.” However, the problem is, in remembering creation week: how do we skip over God blessing and sanctifying one particular day. If we remember creation week, a week is 7 days. We certainly recognize what happen on days 1-6. However, if we forget about day 7 of the creation week—we do an injustice to the memorial.

The lesson makes reference to a statement made by Martin Luther King Jr. We can remember what Martin Luther King Jr. contributed to civil rights every day of the year. However, the memorial of his achievements is celebrated on the 3rd Monday of January each year. If Americans stated that this day no longer matters, what would be the response from the African American community? What would Al Sharpton think about that?

Clearly, we can recognize achievements on an everyday basis, but this doesn’t invalidate the importance of the memorial once such a memorial has been established. It could be compared to appreciating a spouse every day of the year, but forgetting an anniversary. How does that usually go? Thus, remembering the importance of something every day is important; but, remembering the specific time of a memorial is equally important and can be considered insulting when disregarded.

Taking us back to the commandment, you’ll notice that the text says: “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God”. The Lord didn’t have just a concept, but a particular day in Creation designated for the solemnity of the Sabbath. Now, keep in mind that the word “for” can also be translated or understood to mean “because”. Therefore, verse 11 gives us a reason, a because, for why God is including the fourth commandment in His moral law.

“For [because] in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” (Exodus 20: 8-11)

Now we learn that not only is the day itself blessed, sanctified, and holy; it is also hallowed by God during Creation week. It should also be considered that another thing said to be hallowed in scripture is God’s name: “…hallowed be thy name…”.

So, the Israelites were commanded to remember the Sabbath and hallow it. It was to be a memorial of what was done in Creation. As God blessed and hallowed the particular Seventh Day Sabbath, God’s people were to follow His example and repeat this commemoration on a weekly basis: thereby acknowledging God and His creative power on a weekly basis.

In the New Testament, the Sabbath also holds redemptive commemoration value. Jesus went to the cross on Friday, rested on the Sabbath, and rose again on the first day of the week. In addition to the Sabbath’s Creation memorial, it now holds redemptive celebratory value. Why a specific day? Because God said so! He blessed and sanctified a particular day.

There is no indication in scripture that God, Himself, blessed and sanctified any other day of the week. Therefore, although we can remember creation, redemption, and God’s faithfulness to us on any day of the week, only one day was blessed and sanctified for that purpose. If God never blessed, sanctified, made holy, and hallowed a particular day: the authors of the lesson would have a point in questioning whether a day really matters. However, scripture never indicates that another day had the qualities of blessing, sanctification, holiness, and hallowing. This is why the examples given above, relating to Martin Luther King Day or one’s marital anniversary, apply in this context. If a particular day was never made special, any day can be used. However, if a specific day is specified, the day matters unless there is specific evidence for change.

Throughout scripture God refers to the Seventh Day Sabbath as “My holy day”, “Sabbath of the Lord”, and “My Sabbaths”. Of the eight references to Sunday in all of scripture, none of the references refer to Sabbath-like or Sabbath-quality observance. Offerings can be collected on any day of the week. The Word of God can be preached on any day of the week. However, the Sabbath day – the Seventh Day—is still holy. No scripture nullifies this truth or transfers its solemnity to other possible days.

The statement that the author of the article makes, that one is legalistic when observing Sabbath on a particular day and teaching that others should also, is invalid because Sabbath observance on the day that was blessed, sanctified, made holy, and hallowed by God does not fit the definition of legalism. It does not fall under the category of man-made rules. It also does not fall under the category of divine rules done away with (as proven earlier on). Since the criteria for legalism is not met, the Sabbath is still binding for all Christians unlike circumcision and Jewish festivals which the Bible states specifically were nailed to the cross.

Men cannot choose a day to memorialize creation. It must be the day God specified. Rather than look at this in a negative light, this should be seen as a positive—an overwhelming joy! The secular world believes and teaches our children that God either doesn’t exist or doesn’t have enough power to create the world in six days. They question the Biblical historicity! The Sabbath Day memorial is a witness against the secular world that the Biblical account of Creation Week is accurate and that God created the world in six days resting on the seventh. The Biblical God of creation is the only God that makes this claim and declares sovereignty over everything. By keeping the Sabbath we acknowledge that sovereignty and testify of God’s power to create the world in six days resting on the seventh. This was the purpose in the commandment to begin with. This principle keeps the weekly cycle going since the start of humanity: why would we alter this? This memorial is older than we are, but only a day younger than Adam.

Furthermore, with the attacks of Satan, through the instrument of science, on our young people, causing them to doubt their faith, wouldn’t it be wise to obey this commandment and acknowledge God’s sovereignty over Creation? As the first angel of Revelation 14 preaches the everlasting gospel, he calls for humanity to reverence, glorify, and worship the God of Creation. In his address, he uses the same language of the fourth commandment.

“And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” (Revelation 14:6-7)

Clearly, in the last days, there is a call to remember the God of Creation. How can we remember Creation days 1-6 and leave out the seventh day? Do we truly reverence, glorify, and worship the Creator by excluding the recognition of the Seventh Day Sabbath which He specifically blessed, sanctified, made holy, and hallowed on that particular day? Sunday was not the day God blessed after six days of work creating the world. How can we teach our children that God created the world in six days when we don’t believe in the literal Creation week including the day God blessed and sanctified? Wouldn’t this be in contrast to the everlasting gospel, as declared by the angel of Revelation 14:6-7?

The Church, A C.E. Creation?

Finally, in the lesson the author stated, “…it is an oxymoron to speak of church services on the Sabbath (Saturday). The church is a C.E. creation. A cardinal feature of this creation is freedom from the physical legalistic worship of the B.C.E. period…”(63)

The later statement is true, while the former false. We are free from the legalistic worship of the B.C.E. period. I would hasten to add that we were never bonded to the legalistic worship of that period in the first place, except by men and ignorance. However, the Sabbath should not be included in the concept of legalism because it fails to meet the requirements of legalism as proved earlier. Sabbath observance was valid in the B.C.E. period as well as the C.E. period. The Israelites kept the Sabbath, Jesus kept the Sabbath, the apostles kept the Sabbath, as did the apostolic church. There is evidence to suggest that there have been Christian Sabbath keepers down through the ages up till the present.

Unless God nullified the solemnity of the Seventh Day Sabbath, it is still binding and not legalistic to keep it. No scriptural evidence suggests such nullification. In fact, the C.E. church was created on the basis of the New Covenant. If we examine the words of the New Covenant, which originate in the book of Jeremiah, we find that the same law is binding on New Covenant Christians.

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: ” (Hebrews 8:10)

This text from the writer of Hebrews, quoting Jeremiah 31:33, states that the same law would be written on human hearts rather than on tables of stone. Thus, the law of God is even more binding on Christians. The phrase “write them in their hearts” is explained in Romans 2:11-15 which states that when the law is written on the heart, the individuals with this heart written law do naturally the things contained in the law. The law is, therefore, not external, but internal.

Therefore, the C.E. church is founded upon the basis of the New Covenant which upholds the same law—just written on hearts rather than stone, and internal rather than external. Since the Sabbath is a part of the 10 Commandment law, how then can the writer say that because we are in the C.E. time period, the Seventh Day Sabbath is an oxymoron? Are we New Covenant Christians or not?

I do not advocate legalistic observance of the Sabbath; however, keeping the Seventh Day as the Sabbath, specifically and exclusively, cannot and should not be considered legalism. When people add to the Sabbath rules and rituals God did not specify, that would be legalistic worship. However, it is never legalism to obey God’s Word when one claims that Jesus must be the authority.

The church and its members do not have the authority to pick and choose which day(s) they want to keep holy. To do so is to deny the authority of the Bible. One particular church does this and claims responsibility for transferring the solemnity of the Sabbath to Sunday, though the change had no Biblical support. The New Testament does not support Sunday, or open ended Sabbath keeping. Rather, this was a construct of the Roman Catholic Church (as they acknowledge in the Catholic source given below), claiming that they hold authority to change God’s Biblical commands.

“We have in the authoritative voice of the Church the voice of Christ Himself. The Church is above the Bible; and this transference of Sabbath observance from Saturday to Sunday is proof positive of that fact.Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday in the Third - Protestant Fourth - Commandment of God.” (Catholic Record; London, Ontario: Sept. 1, 1923)

The question comes down to this: what, for you, is the ultimate authority-- The words of Jesus, or the words of the church and its scholars?

IN SUMMARY

I tried my best to concise my response but, at the same time, demonstrate the tip of the iceberg of evidence for why this lesson is inaccurate. I must respectfully disagree with some of its claims though I was pleasantly surprised and happy to see that we shared some commonalities in regard to the Sabbath question.

Altogether, the weight of the evidence: textual, literary, historically, and in Jesus’ own words demonstrates my accuracy in this matter and some major flaws in some parts of the authors writing. I tried to keep my claims as faithful to the evidence while simplifying them enough for even the average Bible reader to understand. Please research the terms we discussed and Greek / Hebrew definitions. For further reading I would strongly suggest Ron du Preez’s book. The evidence is too conclusive for us to be unable to reconcile our viewpoints into a correct scriptural understanding. While it is true that scholarship should be taken with a grain of salt, the words of Jesus and the Biblical passages all support my position in addition to the scholarship.

I’m available to answer any questions and/or receive feedback. I urge my Christian brethren to prayerfully read this response and earnestly / honestly consider the matter. Check my statements with scripture and see if the claims are true. I thank you for your anticipated carefulness in considering what I have taken a great deal of time to write.

Sincerely,

John Spellman



Appendix A

Chiasm of Leviticus 23

Lev 23:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.

Lev 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

Lev 23:4 These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.

Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover.
Lev 23:6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.
Lev 23:7 In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.
Lev 23:8 But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.
Lev 23:9 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 23:10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest:
Lev 23:11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.
Lev 23:12 And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD.
Lev 23:13 And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the LORD for a sweet savour: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin.
Lev 23:14 And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
Lev 23:15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:
Lev 23:16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.
Lev 23:17 Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD.
Lev 23:18 And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt offering unto the LORD, with their meat offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savour unto the LORD.
Lev 23:19 Then ye shall sacrifice one kid of the goats for a sin offering, and two lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings.
Lev 23:20 And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits for a wave offering before the LORD, with the two lambs: they shall be holy to the LORD for the priest.
Lev 23:21 And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.
Lev 23:22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God. Lev 23:23 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 23:24 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation.
Lev 23:25 Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
Lev 23:26 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 23:27 Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
Lev 23:28 And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God.
Lev 23:29 For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people.
Lev 23:30 And whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people.
Lev 23:31 Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
Lev 23:32 It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.
Lev 23:33 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 23:34 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD.
Lev 23:35 On the first day shall be an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.
Lev 23:36 Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a solemn assembly; and ye shall do no servile work therein.

Lev 23:37 These are the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, every thing upon his day:
Lev 23:38 Beside the sabbaths of the LORD, and beside your gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all your freewill offerings, which ye give unto the LORD.

Lev 23:39 Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days: on the first day shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath.
Lev 23:40 And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days.
Lev 23:41 And ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month.
Lev 23:42 Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths:
Lev 23:43 That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Lev 23:44 And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the feasts of the LORD.