WAS THERE A NECESSITY FOR A CHANGE OF THE SABBATH?
By William Covert
IN former articles we have shown that the Sabbath was given to be a memorial of creation. It has also been shown that since man became a subject of redemption, the Sabbath is also a reminder of God's power to sanctify and save him from sin. As the Creator himself made the Sabbath to answer the purposes above specified, it must be admitted that it did answer those purposes. To deny this would be equivalent to saying that the Lord tried to do a thing but was not able. This would be charging God with weakness. It will appear by further investigation that redemption was included in, and is of itself, creation. Says the apostle, "We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Eph. 2:10. According to the thought presented in the above scripture, conversion simply causes the one converted to be in harmony with that which was ordained in creation. Previously the apostle had taught that all that it is possible for man to be through redemption was decided upon before man was created. He says, "He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love; having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." Eph. 1:4, 5. It is therefore quite clear that the Lord has not been taken by surprise with any difficulty associated with man. It is also seen that even the sacrifice of Christ for man's salvation was agreed upon before man was made. When therefore the Sabbath was given to be a memorial of the facts included in creation, it embodied facts which in themselves included redemption. From these truths it is proved that redemption is neither less nor greater than creation. Neither is it different from it. It is folly then to talk about the necessity of having a different memorial from that given through creation in order that man might show his faith in redemption. Further, it is an impeachment of the wisdom of God to claim that an event which was understood and to meet which the plans were all laid in creation, should afterward transpire in such a manner as to make it necessary for Him that created to change the memorial which he had provided through creation for the celebration of all that that creation comprehended. Having demonstrated from the word of God that the Lord has given to man the Sabbath, we have in doing so proved that there is no necessity that man should give himself a sabbath. Having also proved that there is in the Sabbath which God has given all that man claims should be in the sabbath that he has substituted, the necessity for a change is again shown to be wanting. Again, as there is no scripture which demands that there should be such a change, but much can be found to the contrary, would it not be more reasonable for the man who claims to be directed by the Scriptures in other matters, to let them decide this subject also? It is claimed that the Lord made the change, and that he requires man to so regard it. Yet at the same time it is admitted that the Scriptures nowhere tell man about the change. Notwithstanding this claim and admission, the same party will teach that the Scriptures reveal to man his whole duty. May the writer kindly ask that reader of this article who observes the first day of the week, calling it either "the Sabbath" or "the Lord's day," if he does not at times wish he could find some scripture which tells him to do so? Could he not then keep it with better satisfaction to himself? Could he not then teach to his neighbors its obligation with more confidence?