TWENTY-FIRST SPEECH

Mr. Waggoner in the Affirmative.—I wish to call your attention to an examination of Colossians 2:11, respecting what Jesus Christ abolished. We have quoted a scripture from Ephesians, showing what was abolished was concerning ordinances; and we refer to this as a parallel scripture. Verses 14-17. I wish to notice what the Apostle has reference to here: “Or of the new moon or of the sabbath days.” We are well aware of the position our friends of the negative take on this. They take the position that the sabbath days spoken of in this scripture are the sabbaths or holy days of the Lord. We take the opposite of this—that it must mean particular days. The language used shows that it does not mean any holy day, but a particular holy day, or in respect of a holy day.—“or of the sabbath days.” The same term is used twenty-seven times in the New Testament, and in every case but this it is rendered feast day. And in all the cases but this, you will find it occurring at the time of some of the feast days of the Jewish dispensation. I take the position that there were but three feast days given by the Lord to the Jews. But besides the three feast days spoken of, they also had fifty-two feasts in the year. In Leviticus 23., both the feasts of the Lord and the sabbaths of the Lord are enumerated. Here the position will be taken that all the sabbaths enumerated are feasts. [Reads.] I remark here, I say, that the position will be taken that they were therefore all feasts of the Lord. Verse 37.PSDS 80.2

If the offerings, etc. were confined to the sabbath day, it would be quite another thing. But these are not the feasts that are based on the sabbath of the Lord. Leviticus 23:14. How many feast days were they to have in a year? Three. Do you claim that these three feast days were all the holy convocation days? No; they were not. But I claim that they rested from labor on those holy convocation days, though they were not all sabbaths. We find three yearly feast days that are not sabbaths. Deuteronomy 16:16. And these are the only three feast days that can be found. There are none to be observed beyond the three. They were to have holy convocation days, and why were they thus called? Were they because the days on which they happened to come were sanctified? The fact that they were to have holy convocations on the sabbath did not sanctify the day, for that was done by God long before. The new moons were distinct from the [other] feasts. These sabbaths are a shadow of things to come. How many weekly sabbaths in the Bible? Only one. We find several yearly sabbaths, but no more weekly. [Here the speaker called for several books to make an illustration.] Suppose we have the creation symbolized by these books, and Christ by this other pile. We will see what are the shadows of things to come and what are not. Here are those which typify the passover. It belongs to Christ as the antitype. It has come up to Him of whom it was the shadow. We will take all the yearly sabbaths, and we will have them the same. But the sabbath of the fourth commandment invariably points back to the creation, and of course is not the shadow of things to come, but a memorial of something that is past. “Wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it.” This argument of the Lord in reference to its origin and object I rest with you. We see its origin was before the promise was made that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head. It was made when God rested from His labors, and the sanctification is placed there and nowhere else. He sanctified it because He rested on it. It points back as an everlasting memorial of facts eternal in their nature.PSDS 81.1

I want to notice the passage my friend cites in 2 Cor., but I have not time to do so now. It is very fortunate when we can investigate a passage of scripture together, for it is very seldom that we are together. He has anticipated me during nearly the whole discussion. He seems to have thrown in a caution upon the minds of the people about believing my definition of things rather than the Bible. But I confess that I am dependent upon a dictionary, and I usually prefer Webster to any other authority. I say that my Bible is not a dictionary of itself. You may teach a boy to read the Bible so that he can compare every term used in the Scriptures, and if he does not understand the meaning of the terms used, he will know nothing of the Bible.PSDS 82.1

2 Corinthians 3. No contrast there, except between the places of writing. But suppose we do contrast it? Perhaps, if he was pressed up pretty close, he would wish the contrast made between one-tenth of what was written on the tables of stone and what was written on the fleshly tables of the heart that was not written in the tables of stone and embraced in the first commandment? Is the contrast of all these precepts written in the fleshly tables of the heart before a man is brought under grace? Is not this a dangerous doctrine? If you could look into the heart of the true Christian and see what is there written, you would by no means get the contrast of the precepts written on the tables of stone. But I suppose all that will be claimed will be a contrast with the fourth commandment; but he has got to claim a contrast with the whole ten, if with any. He must contrast the whole law of God as written in the tables of stone, with that written in the fleshly tables of the Christian’s heart. This is the sort of contrast that my opponent has brought into this discussion. Will he continue to contrast the law of God with the heart of the Christian?PSDS 82.2

Verse 7, 13. Now, I want to know if it was not the glory of Moses’ countenance that was veiled? Were the ten commandments veiled? It says not one word about the tables of stone, but about Moses. But my opponent says the ministration of death is the ministration of the tables of stone. Even admitting that it produced death to those who transgressed it, does that prove that the ten commandments are a ministration of death and to be contrasted with what is written or engraven on the fleshly tablets of the heart when a man is brought under grace? We think not.PSDS 83.1

We were not going to notice Romans yet, but since he has based part of his argument on it, and, moreover, quoted or cited it at a passage parallel with this, we will look at it. Romans 8:2. Also 7:22-24. Now, we claim that there are three laws brought in here—the law of God, and the law of sin working on his members, and the law that sets him free. Much, very much, is involved in the consideration of this subject.PSDS 83.2