p. 52 | The Sabbatism of Hebrews IV by Uriah Smith

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 1, 1871

The Sabbatism of Hebrews IV.

By Uriah Smith

In a so-called Review of Both Sides, pp. 303, 304, Eld. T. M. Preble attempts to erect on Heb. 4 a pagoda of sophistry in which to worship his idol, the first-day Sabbath.

In the work entitled Both Sides, p. 101, we made the following points respecting the first day of the week: “The first day does not possess one single feature which it must possess in order to be a Sabbath. 1. No divine being ever rested upon it, of which we have any record. 2. No blessing was ever placed upon it. 3. It was never sanctified or set apart for man’s use. 4. There is no command found anywhere in the Bible for its observance. 5. No Bible writer has ever set us the example of resting on that day. 6. Every mention of the first day of the week in the New Testament is an allusion to it as a day for secular business, and not for religious rest or worship. 7. There is no intimation that that day or any other was ever to take the place of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.”

Passing by the last four of these propositions in significant silence, Eld. P. attempts to disprove the first three as follows:—

“But let us compare this with Heb. 4:10: ‘He [Christ] ALSO hath ceased from his own work, AS God did from his.’

“1. Did God ‘rest’ on the ‘seventh day’? Then did Christ ‘REST’ on the first day AS God did from his on the seventh?

“2. Did God ‘BLESS’ the seventh day on which HE ‘rested’? On Heb. 4:10, Boothroyd says:

“‘For he who] For he, Christ the Lord, who hath entered, &c. He hath rested from his work of redemption, from his trials and sufferings, as God did from his works of creation, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father, enjoying rest in Heaven, and the highest satisfaction in the work he has accomplished. For the sense given, see Owen and Wardlaw.’

“Then must Christ have ‘BLESSED’ the ‘first day,’ if he rested AS God rested—‘because’ that in it ‘he had rested;’ therefore he [Christ] ‘blessed’ it [the first day] as God did the seventh.”

“3. Did God ‘sanctify’ the seventh day? then must Christ have ‘sanctified’ the ‘first day,’ or he could not have rested on a sanctified day AS God did, unless he had sanctified the day. And all the other assertions under this head will compare with the above, as will be seen by any one who will carefully examine this matter.

“But says the objector, He did not rest on that day, for he went with his disciples to Emmaus. Did the Lord Jehovah cease from all motion—become perfectly inactive—and do nothing on the seventh day after the creation? Not at all. He only rested from his work of creation. Thus Christ rested from his work of redemption.”

This is Eld. P.’s proof entire, that some divine being rested upon the first day of the week, and placed his blessing upon it, and sanctified it. We have looked it over carefully to find one single statement in it respecting Christ or the first day of the week, which was not a groundless assumption; but we find none.

1. He inserts the word Christ in Heb. 4:10, to make it appear to the reader that that verse has reference to Christ, and that Christ ceased from his work, as God did from his; and on this assumption all his succeeding false statements and assumptions rest. We shall show that the verse has no reference to Christ whatever.

2. He says that if God rested on the seventh day, so did Christ rest on the first day. Why does he say, “On the first day”? Why not on some other day, since it can be shown that on that first day on which he arose he performed work of the same kind, if not to the same amount, as on many previous days of his earthly ministry?

3. He assumes that if Christ rested as God did, he must have blessed and sanctified the day; whereas a person must be skilled in blindfolding his mental powers, not to perceive that the blessing and sanctifying of the day were separate and distinct acts from the resting upon it. God rested upon the seventh day; and when his rest was entirely completed, it was still optional with him whether to bless it or not. The blessing and sanctifying were subsequent acts. So Christ could have rested on the first day (though he did not), as God rested on the seventh, without blessing or sanctifying the day.

4. But Eld. P. says that Christ must have sanctified the first day, or he could not have rested on a sanctified day as God did, unless he had sanctified the day. This is one of the most singular statements to be met with in the whole range of religious controversy. It can be accounted for only on the ground that Eld. P., when he wrote it, had left his Bible at home, and in trusting to his memory fell into marvelous confusion respecting the events of the creation week. When did God sanctify the day? After he rested upon it. Was it then a sanctified day when he rested upon it? It was not. Neither did his resting upon it make it a sanctified day. The sanctifying was a distinct act performed after the resting was completed; for he sanctified it “because that in it he had rested.” Yet Eld. P., by his reasoning, asserts that God rested on a sanctified day! And on that false statement raises an equally false assumption that the day on which he falsely claims that Christ rested was also a sanctified day!

5. But did Jehovah in resting cease from all motion? asks Eld. P. And he answers, “Not at all. He only rested from his work of creation;” and then he adds that “thus Christ rested from his work of redemption.” That God rested from his work of creation is exactly true; that is, the work which he had been doing during the six creative days, he ceased to do on the seventh day. Not an act of that kind of work did he do on the seventh day. But to say that Christ ceased from his work of redemption on the first day of the week, even in the sense of not doing what he had previously done, is exactly false. If Eld. P. had said that this rest of Christ was upon the seventh day, the whole of which day he lay in the quietude of the tomb, it would have had a greater show of consistency, but only a show, even then. What, then, was the work which Christ did previous to his crucifixion? He was our prophet, and spent his time teaching his disciples. What did he do on the day of his resurrection? Resumed the very same work, as is proved by the record of his meeting with those who saw him in the morning of that day, by his instructions to the two disciples on their way to Emmaus, and by his interview with the eleven at the close of that day. Matt. 28:9; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:31–48; John 20:14–23. And he kept up this same work during the forty days he remained with them before his ascension. Acts 1:1–3. Let the language of Luke in this last reference be noted: “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen.” Luke here refers to his gospel record, and he reckons the things that Jesus did and taught while upon earth, from the commencement of his ministry till he was taken up into Heaven. There was no cessation from the work of redemption on the first day of the week. The idea is preposterous; and such an assumption never would have been wrung from the brain of despair in any less desperate case than the defense of the first-day Sabbath.

6. But suppose we grant all that Eld. P. claims, that is, that Christ rested on the first day of the week, and blessed and sanctified it, and so made a Sabbath of it, then we inquire, How often should this Sabbath be observed? Jehovah rested after he had labored six days in the work of creation; so his Sabbath came once every seven days. But how long had Christ labored in the work of redemption before he rested on the first day of the week? At least during his whole public ministry, which was three years and a half; so his Sabbath could not properly be observed oftener than once in three years and a half. Verily Eld. P. has labored hard to find at last a Sabbath which can come only once in one hundred and eighty-two weeks!

7. But if the first day of the week marks a completed work, and is to be observed as a memorial of such work, it should end a cycle, not commence one. And, if Christ designed to erect that day into a weekly Sabbath, he should have labored six days in the work of redemption, then rested upon the first day of the week, and changed the numbering of the weeks so that this day upon which he rested might be the last day of the new cycle. In no other way could

the first day of the week become the memorial of a completed work of redemption.

8. But why will people so thoughtlessly insist that Christ has finished the work of redemption? A moment’s candid thought is sufficient to satisfy any one that redemption includes the restoration of the purchased possession, and the change of the saints to immortality, and will not be completed till these things are accomplished.

So then, to sum up the examination of Eld. P.’s argument on Heb. 4, we find, 1. That Heb. 4:10, as will be more fully shown hereafter, has no reference to Christ; which cuts off his entire argument on that passage. 2. That even though it referred to Christ, and proved that he had entered into his rest, it would not follow that that rest was upon the first day of the week; for that day is not mentioned. 3. That if he had rested on that day, the blessing and sanctification would not follow, they being separate and distinct acts from the resting. 4. That the attempt to prove the sanctification of the first day by claiming that God rested on a sanctified day, is an attempt to prove one falsehood by another; and the foolishness of the attempt further appears in that if the second statement were true it would not prove the first. 5. That Christ did not rest on the first day of the week, and hence had no occasion to bless and sanctify it.

And if all our other points will, as he says, compare with these which he has attempted to answer, and can no more be disproved than he has disproved these, we may submit them, as we have done, and still do, without any misgivings, to every candid and honest mind.

Very little, however, is done toward an elucidation of Heb. 4 by exposing Eld. P.’s utter misconception of its meaning. Let us therefore bestow a few thoughts upon the questions, What is the rest brought to view in that chapter? For what purpose is allusion made to the seventh day? What is the “other day” introduced? and, What is meant by verse 10?

The “rest” is first mentioned in chapter 3:11: “So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.” In verse 18 Paul says, “And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not.” The first verse of chapter 4:1 reads: “Let us therefore fear lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.” Verse 5 reads: “And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.” And verse 10: “For he that hath entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works as God did from his.” These are all the instances in which this rest is spoken of by God as “my rest,” and by Paul, referring to God, as “his rest.” They show us that the rest is “God’s rest.”

We next inquire, What is meant by this expression? The definition of the word “rest” (κατάπαυσις) given in the Greek lexicons, as it is undoubtedly correct, is also perhaps as clearly expressed as could well be. Greenfield says, “Spoken of that happy abode, that eternal felicity, in which believers are to dwell with God. Heb. 3:11, 18; 4:3, 5; κατάπαυσις τοῦ θεοῦ, that rest, that felicity, which God himself enjoys. Heb. 4:1, 10, 11.”

When was this rest of God, into which believers are to enter, ordained? or from what point does it date? Ans. From the creation of this world. This is proved by verse 4, and it is this fact which explains the allusion to the seventh day in that verse: “For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.” He had just created a world so lovely and beautiful, that the morning stars sang with delight, and all the sons of God shouted for joy, as it rode forth in majesty upon its new-born circuit. The labor of his hands was all good in the sight of God; and he devoted a day to the blissful contemplation of his finished and glorious work. Then, as it appears, he determined that into such a state of rest and felicity as he then enjoyed, the inhabitants of this new world should enter after they had proved their fidelity by a suitable period of probation; that as he then enjoyed rest, or cessation from labor, after a period during which he had exerted his creative energy, so they should rest after a period of probation finished, and a work of obedience faithfully performed. Thus the Sabbath, as kept by man, is an emblem of the rest that awaits us; as kept by God, it was the reality which, if faithful, we shall hereafter enjoy. So this rest, in the purpose of God, was prepared for us from the foundation of the world.

God formed the world to be inhabited by a race of righteous beings; Isa. 45:18; 2 Pet. 3:13; and that design will be fully carried out. A certain number is requisite to people the globe, and this number will be made up. And when sin entered, rendering it certain that myriads would be ruined thereby, it became necessary that just so many more should live on the earth as would be lost by sin, so that at the conclusion of probationary history the number that shall be found rescued from the ruin of the fall will be the same as that which God originally designed to people a sinless and unfallen world. Hence it was said to the woman, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception.” And these considerations explain the expression in Heb. 4:6: “Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein.” Yes, some, the required number, must be made up to enter therein, that the design of God fail not of accomplishment.

And for this God has waited from age to age. One generation fails to make up the number, and he extends his mercy, and gives opportunity, to another. One dispensation fails to produce a sufficient number of righteous persons, and God opens another, and extends the privilege of securing salvation to still future generations. This explains the reference that is made to the failure of the people to meet the requirements of God in the days of Moses, and the limiting of another day in David, or the giving of the gospel to the Gentiles. Sin has made some changes in God’s plan from time to time necessary, but it will not be able to frustrate it. If Adam and Eve and their posterity had remained without sin, the gospel plan would never have been formed, and Christ would not have died. Then the earth would in time have become replenished with a race sufficiently holy and sufficiently tested to be made immortal and enter into the rest which God had ordained. After the flood, had the descendants of Noah all continued righteous, the number might very soon, probably, have been made up. But they having nearly all hopelessly apostatized, God called Abraham, and so opened a new era in the history of the world. And having led his descendants by his direct providence, and schooled them for a time under Egyptian affliction, he led them out with as mighty manifestations of his power as he had ever exhibited for the salvation of any people. He proposed by special contract to make them his peculiar people and his special treasure. And had they from that time remained true to God, doubtless in that dispensation the number of the heirs of salvation would have been completed. But they threw away their golden opportunity, abused the mercy of God, and so provoked him to anger that he swore that they should not enter into his rest. And this explains the expression in Heb. 4:3: “As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest [that is, that they shall not enter my rest]; although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.” Although the works were finished, and God rested, and ordained a rest for his people at the foundation of the world, a period even then long ages in the past, yet that rest would not be given till a people should be found worthy of it. And though their failure was putting off the great consummation still longer, yet he swore that they, on account of their unbelief, should not enter in, but that the time should be prolonged, and the call should go to other people, till the requisite number of really worthy ones should at last be found.

But did not those who fell not in the wilderness, Caleb and Joshua, and all who came out of Egypt who were under twenty years of age—did not these enter into God’s rest according to his promise, by entering Canaan? Answer. Those to whom God swore that they should not enter into his rest, not only failed to reach Canaan, but, as we understand it, were shut out from the heavenly rest embraced in the promise of God. And verse 8 shows that Canaan was not the true rest promised; for it says, “If Jesus [which should be translated Joshua, as in the margin] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” So one generation having fallen in the wilderness through unbelief, and God having been obliged to turn from his purpose to make up the number from those to whom he had given this great opportunity, the most those secured who finally reached Canaan was a type of the future perfect rest.

Then followed an extension of the work, the announcement of a new dispensation, or the limiting of another day, namely, the gospel to the Gentiles. And this explains Heb. 4:7: “Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To-day, after so long a time; as it is said, To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.” Yes, although so long a time had elapsed, and God’s purpose was not yet accomplished, because the number to enter into his rest was yet incomplete, he proposed to wait still longer, and limited another day, and extended the invitation to others. This explains how “the fall of them is the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them, the riches of the Gentiles,” as Paul says in Rom. 11:12. We owe it to Israel’s failure that we now have the privilege of accepting the invitation, To-day if ye will hear his voice.

But it may be asked, how this rest can be future when it is said in verse 3, “For we which have believed do enter into rest.” We do not consider this the clearest translation which might be given; but it will be noticed that even this language shows that the believing is something which is all passed before the entering into rest takes place. The believing is something which they “have” done, and which is consequently all completed before they enter into rest. The construction of the Greek is an aorist participle, and verb, and a literal translation would be, We, having believed, enter into rest; that is, after we have believed we enter into rest; just as we read in James: “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation, for when he is tried he shall receive the crown of life.” Not every time he is tried he shall receive this, but when the work of trial with him is completed. And what Paul would teach us by this language in regard to the rest is, that it is by believing that we are to enter therein. The unbelieving Jews are referred to as a warning, and we are exhorted to fear lest a promise being left us of entering in, we should fall after the same example of unbelief. For it is by believing in God, and maintaining our integrity toward him, that we are to enter in. Having believed, we shall enter in; having been unbelieving and disobedient, we shall fail, as did the unbelieving Jews. Wakefield translates this verse as follows: “For we believers are to go into that rest (spoken of in this scripture, So I sware in mine anger that they shall not go into my rest) that rest indeed after God had finished his work at the foundation of the world.” The same rest, the rest of God, which the Jews failed of by unbelief, we are to gain by faith. This is Paul’s argument.

That this rest is future is further shown by verses 8, 9, and 10. If Joshua had given the true rest, as the Jews no doubt thought, another day would not have been mentioned as one in which men were to seek for it; but another day was mentioned in David, so it follows that Joshua did not give the rest promised. Then he adds, verse 9, “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God;” that is, it has not been given, and is yet to come. Then he shows in verse 10 why it must certainly be future: “For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works as God did from his.” The expression, “his rest,” as we have shown, refers to God’s rest; and the argument of the apostle is, that when a person enters into that rest, he ceases from his own works as God did from his. What are his own works? Answer. The works of faith by which, as the apostle has shown, this rest is to be secured. But do we see any of the people of God that have thus ceased from this work? No. The rest is not yet attained, but is yet future. Verse 10 is introduced with the word “for,” which indicates that what follows is a reason for the preceding statement. There remains a rest to the people of God; for, or because, he that is entered into his rest (as the people of God have, if it has already been given) hath ceased, must have ceased, from his own works. But we see that they have not ceased, or are not released from their exertions to gain the rest of God; therefore that rest is yet future. So he adds in verse 11: “Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.”

With this view the reasoning of the apostle is all consistent, logical, and conclusive. But let us suppose verse 10 to refer to Christ, as some claim, and see how it will then stand: “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he [Christ] that hath entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works as God did from his.” That is, there remains a rest for the people of God, because Christ hath ceased from his works. How does this show that there remains a rest to God’s people? No one can fail to see that the reasoning of the apostle is entirely destroyed by such an interpretation. And then when it is said in verse 11, “Let us therefore labor to enter into that rest,” what rest is referred to, the rest of Christ? or that of God? So the reasoning of the apostle is not only destroyed, but unpardonable confusion is thrown over the subject. And the absurdity of this application is brought out in still bolder relief if we attempt to draw from it an argument for Sunday-keeping as is done by him who is so unfortunate as to fall into this misconception of the apostle’s argument; for then the grand conclusion would be, as brought out in verse 11, Let us therefore labor to enter into Sunday-keeping!

From what has been said we think the readers will have no difficulty in understanding Hebrews 4. The rest referred to is always the rest of God, the state of future blessedness which he has ordained for believers. It dates from God’s rest on the seventh day. The Sabbath is an emblem of it. The number to enter therein would long ago have been made up, had not sin worked so powerfully to delay the consummation of the plan of salvation. The Jews possessed a type of it in Canaan. The call and opportunity have come down to the Gentiles. We are to gain it by faith. It is yet future; for Joshua did not give it, and we see no one exempted from the warfare of faith by which it is to be secured. And so, taking warning from the terrible effects of unbelief in the past, we are still to labor to enter therein, for it is yet before us, inviting us to its heavenly and eternal joys.

U. S.