WHAT WAS NAILED TO THE CROSS?

BY Uriah Smith
p. 1, Para. 1, [NAILED].

AN EXPOSITION OF COLOSSIANS 2:14-17.

p. 1, Para. 2, [NAILED].

"BLOTTING out the handwriting of ordinances that was

against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of
the way, nailing it to his cross. . . . Let no man
therefore judge you in meat, or drink, or in respect of a
holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which
are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
p. 1, Para. 3, [NAILED].

There was a law consisting of just ten commandments,

spoken by the voice of God from the summit of Sinai. This
law, and no more, God wrote with his own finger upon the
tables of stone. This he caused to be deposited by itself
in the ark prepared expressly for its reception. This code
of ten commandments, he himself calls "a law." He said to
Moses (Ex. 24:12), "Come up to me into the mount, and be
there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and
commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach
them." p. 1, Para. 4, [NAILED].

God wrote nothing but the ten commandments. These alone

were written upon the tables; to these the terms law and
commandments are both applied. By these circumstances and
peculiarities they are sharply distinguished and set apart
from all other injunctions and obligations. By these they
are shown to belong, in a degree and a sense not common to
any other requirements, to the Most High. They are pre-
eminently "the law of God," and "the commandments of God."
These constitute that New Testament law by which is "the
knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20), without which "there is no
transgression" nor imputation of sin (Rom. 4:15; 5:13), and
the transgression of which is sin. 1 John 3:4. p. 1, Para.
5, [NAILED].

These constitute "his [God's] commandments," the keeping

of which is "the whole duty of man," and by which every
work shall be tested in the judgment (Eccl. 12:13,14); and
they compose the "royal law" and the "law of liberty" by
which James declares we shall be judged at last. James
2:8,12. They are the "commandments of God" to which the
third message of Revelation 14 brings us, in connection
with "the faith of Jesus," which includes all the teaching
and precepts of Christ and his apostles in the New
Testament. Rev. 14:12. They constitute that law which God
declared that his Son would "magnify" and make "honorable"
(Isa. 42:21), which he speaks of as "my law," and declared
that he would write it under the new covenant in the hearts
of his people (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10) -- the "his [God's]
commandments" which those will be found keeping who will be
summoned at last to enter through the gates into the city
of the New Jerusalem. Rev. 22:14. p. 1, Para. 6, [NAILED].

There was another law communicated privately to Moses, and

written by him in a book, called "the book of the law,"
which consisted of instructions in regard to meats, drink,
feast-days, divers washings, and carnal ordinances, and
which was deposited, not in the ark, but by its side. The
difference between them in this respect was this: The ten
commandments lay in unapproachable majesty inside the
golden ark, deep graven by the finger of Deity himself in
the imperishable agate of the mountains; the law of types
and ceremonies lay outside the ark, written with ink, by
human hands, on the perishable parchment. p. 2, Para. 1,
[NAILED].

We call the one "the moral law," because it related to

moral duties alone; the other we call "the ceremonial law,"
because it related wholly to ceremonial observances. It is
not claimed that the terms moral law and ceremonial law are
found in the Scriptures; but they are convenient terms to
express distinctions which the Scriptures clearly teach.
The Scriptures do not use the words probation, prophetic,
millennial, moral, mental, physical, and a host of other
terms which are exceedingly convenient to express
distinctions recognized in the Bible, and to which no one
objects. p. 2, Para. 2, [NAILED].

We say that Col. 2:14-17 refers exclusively to the

ceremonial law, having to the moral law not the remotest
allusion whatever. And he who endeavors to hide behind this
scripture as his defense for the neglect or violation of
any moral duties, will stand at last in the judgment
ashamed of his folly and speechless in his condemnation.
p. 2, Para. 3, [NAILED].

In studying Col. 2:14-17, we ought to pay some regard to

the consistency of the figures which the apostle uses, lest
we represent him as a simpleton in spite of his
inspiration. It is first to be noticed that the subject of
the apostle's remark is the "handwriting of ordinances."
This expression will not apply in any sense to the ten
commandments; for no abuse of language can be carried far
enough to allow us to call them a "handwriting;" and they
contained not a singe "ordinance," or ceremony. The
"handwriting of ordinances" is not the ten commandments.
p. 3, Para. 1, [NAILED].

The apostle further says that this "handwriting" was

"blotted out." That only can be blotted out with the ink
and pen of the scribe, which has been written by the hand
of the scribe. That which is engraved in stone might be
brushed over and discolored with ink; but the engraving
would be there in all its distinctness still; it could not
in any sense be "blotted out," and it would be utterly
inconsistent to apply that term to it. p. 3, Para. 2,
[NAILED].

The apostle continues that this handwriting was "nailed to

the cross." If we attempt to apply this to the ten
commandments, we involve the astute and logical Paul in the
absurdity of talking about nailing up tables of stone.
Against such an idea there are two objections: 1. That
which was designed ever to be annulled by being nailed up
after the ancient manner of parchment laws, would not have
been put upon such material as stone, in the first place;
and, 2. Having been engraved on stone, the proper way to
annul them, if they had to be annulled, would be to break
the stone tablets, not to try the absurd and impossible
feat of nailing them up. p. 3, Para. 3, [NAILED].

The figure of blotting out and nailing up the laws written

by men upon parchment, as applied to what Christ
accomplished by his death upon the cross, is at once
consistent and forcible. Christ was nailed to the cross. In
him all offerings met their antitype, all shadows their
substance. They were there nailed in him to the cross. Men
could look upon him and say, Here is the great sacrifice
which supersedes all typical offerings. The laws for these
are now no longer in force; they are nailed with him to the
cross. p. 3, Para. 4, [NAILED].

But suppose we try to consider that the tables of stone

were also there, in him, nailed to the cross; in what
respect was he the antitype of them? In what respect were
they the shadows and he the substance? Could men look upon
him and say, Now, to-night I will plunge a dagger into the
heart of my enemy; for the law, "Thou shalt not kill," is
there in Christ nailed to the cross, and is no longer
binding? p. 4, Para. 1, [NAILED].

But, says the objector, if the book of the law was nailed
to the cross, then the ten commandments were nailed to the
cross; for they were all in that book, word for word; and
the doing away of the book did them away also. Whoever
makes such an assertion, has certainly been very heedless
in his reading of the book. It is not true. The ten
commandments nowhere appear in the books of Moses in
legislative form; that is, in a form to drive their
authority in any degree from the book. They are but once
recorded in set form, as God spoke them, and that is in Ex.
20:3-17. And this is historical and not legislative; it is
simply a narrative that God did come down and give that law
from Sinai with his own voice; but the law derived no
authority from this narrative. Its authority rested upon
the fact that it had been spoken by God, and written with
his finger upon the tables of stone, and deposited in the
holiest spot of the most holy place of the sanctuary. And
though every copy of the book containing this narrative had
been destroyed and put out of existence, it would not have
affected in the least the fact of the promulgation of that
law, nor have touched the tables containing the legislative
transcript of the same. What is here stated will apply also
to Moses' rehearsal and paraphrase of the law forty years
later, as recorded in Deut. 5:6-21. p. 4, Para. 2,
[NAILED].

With the law of Moses it was not so. That was promulgated
through the book, and its authority was derived from that
record. It had no position elsewhere, and when that
handwriting was nailed to the cross, nothing of it longer
remained. p. 4, Para. 3, [NAILED].

Having thus noticed some of the general principles

involved in the question treated of in Col. 2:14-17, we
come now to be "against" us, "contrary to" us, "blotted
out," and "nailed to the cross." These are meats, drinks,
holy-days, new moons, and sabbath days, or sabbaths; for in
consequence of the "blotting out" previously mentioned, no
one is to judge us with reference to these things. p. 5,
Para. 1, [NAILED].
 Respecting the meats, drinks, holy-days (feast-days,) and
new moons, there is no difference of opinion -- all agree
that they belonged to the Jewish system, and with that
passed away. The sabbaths there mentioned is the point
around which the opposing forces rally, and on which the
controversy centers. The object of the no-Sabbath and
Sunday people being to include the weekly Sabbath in the
catalogue of the things done away, various claims are at
once set up. One says that "there was but one system before
Christ; it was an inseparable whole; it was all Jewish, and
therefore all done away." Another says, "No, this does not
embrace all that existed before Christ; there were some
things which did not belong to the 'handwriting of
ordinances,' and which are not therefore done away; and the
Jews had yearly sabbaths distinct from the weekly Sabbath;
but then, the term sabbaths must include all sabbaths, of
whatever kind; hence the weekly Sabbath is embraced in the
term, and has been done away with the others." Another
asserts that "the term cannot refer to any ceremonial
sabbaths of the Jews, because they had no annual festivals
which could properly be called 'sabbaths;' that the word
sabbaton used in Col. 2:16, is the one always used to
designate the weekly Sabbath; and therefore the word there
must refer to the weekly Sabbath, and that alone, all the
Jewish festivals being included in the word holy-day (or
feast-day) used just before." p. 5, Para. 2, [NAILED].

Thus the fourth commandment seems to be a source of

perplexity to many people. It is so, however, only to those
who wish to avoid its obligations. Such, we are happy to
say, will always find it a thorn in their side and a prick
in their eyes. To all others, it is a "delight, the holy of
the Lord, honorable." p. 5, Para. 3, [NAILED].

This latter class, with whom we rejoice to stand, have no

annual festivals, connected with which there were seven
annual sabbaths. These sabbaths owed their existence to
that system, and were an inseparable part of the same. They
were properly included in the "handwriting of ordinances;"
and no sabbaths except those of this nature could be
included in this term. There is therefore no necessity of
going outside of the limits prescribed by the apostle's
language, and invading the realm of the moral law, and
bringing in the weekly Sabbath of the Lord, which is just
as distinct from these other sabbaths in its origin,
nature, office, and destiny, as can possibly be. p. 6,
Para. 1, [NAILED].
 Moreover, Paul is careful to guard still further against
any misunderstanding in this matter, by immediately adding
(verse 17) this restrictive clause: "Which are a shadow of
things to come; but the body is of Christ." Thus he points
out in just as plain language as could be used, just what
sabbaths he refers to; it is only to those which belong to
the system of types and shadows, and which are a part and
parcel of that system. But this was never true of the
weekly Sabbath, which originated, as the record in Genesis
shows, before any type or shadow had, or could have had, a
place in the economy of God's grace in behalf of men. p.
6, Para. 2, [NAILED].

But some at this point seem to have committed the singular

blunder of supposing that this sentence -- "which are a
shadow of things to come" -- is a declarative instead of a
restrictive one, not limiting the idea to certain sabbaths
which are shadows, but asserting that all sabbaths are
shadows, the weekly Sabbath as well as others. p. 6, Para.
3, [NAILED].

So we have the assertion, "The seventh-day Sabbath is a

shadow, say what they will;" for Paul says so in Col. 2:17.
Very profound! Let us illustrate: Farmer A has a piece of
land in which he pastures horses, sheep, and cows. His cows
are of two kinds -- a very poor, ordinary kind, which he
calls the "common" kind, and others which are of a very
rare and valuable breed. For several days he has his hired
man, B, drive them all up to the barn at night, for safe
keeping. But at length he determines to sell off his
horses, sheep and all his cows except the rare and valuable
ones. So he says to his hired man, "Go down to the pasture
and drive up the horses, the sheep, and the cows which are
common; for I have decided to sell them." B goes down and
drives them all up, good, bad, and indifferent. A says,
"Why do you drive them all up? I told you to drive up only
the cows which are common." "But, replies B, "you said they
were all common. Didn't you say 'the cows which are
common'? and that means all cows; and they are all common;
for you said so." Then says A to B, "I have no use for a
man who don't know enough to drive cattle! You may go" And
he sends his fine breeds back to the pasture by the hand of
a better man, and sells the remainder. p. 6, Para. 4,
[NAILED].

"Sabbaths which are a shadow," as Paul expresses it, is a

declaration that there are sabbaths which are not a shadow,
and these last are excluded from the things of which he is
speaking. There are many considerations which show that the
weekly Sabbath cannot by any possibility be included in the
sabbaths of which the apostle speaks in Col. 2:16. p. 7,
Para. 1, [NAILED].

1. The weekly Sabbath did not have its origin with meats,
drinks, festivals, new moons, and ceremonial, or annual,
sabbaths. It originated during man's independent, innocent
condition before the fall (Gen. 2:2,3,) and was thus placed
among the original, primary laws which would always have
governed him though he had never sinned; while the latter
originated with the ceremonial system introduced at Horeb.
p. 7, Para. 2, [NAILED].

2. It did not rest on the same authority with them. Its

authority rested upon the voice of God, and the writing of
God upon the tables of stone; the ceremonial system was
found only in the book written by Moses. p. 7, Para. 3,
[NAILED].

3. It was not typical or shadowy in its nature, any more

than the command, "Thou shalt have no other gods before
me." p. 8, Para. 1, [NAILED].

4. It was not "against us," as were the things of which

Paul is speaking; for "the Sabbath was made for man." Mark
2:27. p. 8, Para. 2, [NAILED].

5. It was not "contrary to us," for there is no

commandment or institution anywhere singled out to which so
great blessings are attached as are promised to the keeping
of the Sabbath, not to the Jews only, but to the Gentiles
also. See Isa. 56:6,7; Jer. 17:24,25; Isa. 58:13,14. p. 8,
Para. 3, [NAILED].

6. There is no necessity for including the weekly Sabbath

in the expression, "sabbaths which are a shadow of things
to come," inasmuch as there were other sabbaths, of the
same nature as the feast-day and new moons mentioned, in
number amply sufficient to meet the demands of the
apostle's language. p. 8, Para. 4, [NAILED].

Right here the retreating no-Sabbath forces, and a portion

of their Sunday allies, face about and endeavor to make a
stand. They say that there was but one Jewish festival that
is ever called a sabbath; that the others were not
sabbaths; and hence Paul could not properly use the term
sabbaths (plural) as applied to Jewish ceremonial sabbaths,
inasmuch as there was only one such. Moreover, they claim
that the term sabbaton used in Col. 2:16, is the term
always used to designate the weekly Sabbath, and never a
ceremonial one, and as the ceremonial festivals are all
included in the term holy-day (heorte, feast-day,) the word
sabbaton must refer to the weekly Sabbath alone; and
further, that in the Hebrew there is only one instance in
which the word used to designate the weekly Sabbath,
shabbath, is applied to a Jewish festival, the other Jewish
feasts being designated by another word, shabbathon, which
signifies merely "rest," and not a "sabbath." Therefore
sabbaton in Col. 2:16, must mean the weekly Sabbath
exclusively, or at least must include that. p. 8, Para. 5,
[NAILED].

It becomes us, now that the "original" is pointed at us,

to move along with awe and trepidation. Approaching
cautiously to reconnoiter this formidable intrenchment, let
us see what we find. p. 8, Para. 6, [NAILED].

1. As to the meaning of the term sabbaton, it does not

invariably mean the weekly Sabbath. It is certainly used in
one other sense in the New Testament. The Pharisee
mentioned in Luke 18:12, fasted twice in the sabbaton,
necessarily there rendered "week." Now, although whenever
the weekly Sabbath is mentioned, it is from this word
sabbaton, the fact that this word does not invariably refer
to the weekly Sabbath, but means "week" in the text
referred to, as it does also in the eight texts which refer
to the first day of the week, reveals the possibility that
it may be used also to designate the annual sabbaths of the
Jews. No argument can therefore be drawn from the mere use
of the word sabbaton in Col. 2:16, to show that the weekly
Sabbath is there intended. p. 9, Para. 1, [NAILED].

2. The facts connected with the use of the Hebrew term are
still more decisive. The term shabbath, by which the
seventh-day Sabbath is always designated, is once, at
least, applied to one of the Jewish annual festivals, and
that, too, in an intensified form, "a sabbath of
sabbatism." By such terms is the annual sabbath of the
tenth day of the seventh month designated in Lev. 23:32.
This the bitterest opponents of the Sabbath are compelled
to admit. And this is a fatal weakness in their position.
They might just as well abandon their claims at one; for no
argument which they can build can stand the damaging force
of this fact. Mark the situation: the term shabbath, by
which the weekly Sabbath is always designated, is once, at
least, definitely applied to one of the annual sabbaths of
the Jews. It does not therefore invariably designate the
seventh-day Sabbath; and if the Scriptures thus apply it to
one of the annual sabbaths, it is just as appropriate to
others, and we may properly apply it to them. p. 9, Para.
2, [NAILED].

But, it may be replied, the Scriptures do not apply it to

a ceremonial sabbath, except in that one instance; and that
makes a difference, and settles the matter. We will see
about this by and by. But first let us inquire what other
annual sabbaths there were, besides the day of atonement,
and what their nature was. p. 9, Para. 3, [NAILED].

The Jews had two feasts, each covering a series of days.

These were the feast of the passover, from the 15th to the
22d of the first month, and the feast of tabernacles, from
the 15th to the 23rd of the seventh month. On the first and
seventh days of the passover, there was to be a holy
convocation, and no servile work, to be done. Lev. 23:7,8.
On the first and eighth days of the feast of tabernacles,
there were to be likewise holy convocations, and an entire
cessation from servile labor. Verses 35,36. Respecting the
two last named, the record (verse 39) says: "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." In
the common version these are called "sabbaths." Our new
critics say the translators of the Bible were not as
intelligent as they should have been, and ought not to have
translated the words "sabbath," but "rest." With this,
however, we are not just now particularly concerned. We are
inquiring simply into the nature of these days. p. 9,
Para. 4, [NAILED].

In addition to these four days of rest and convocation, we

find three others of a like nature: the first one, fifty
days after the offering of the wave sheaf, the pentecost.
Of this we read (verse 21), "And ye shall proclaim on the
self-same day, that it may be a holy convocation unto you:
ye shall do no servile work therein." The next was on the
first day of the seventh month, a memorial of blowing of
trumpets. Verses 24,25: "In the seventh month, in the first
day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of
blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation. Ye shall do no
servile work therein." This also is called a "sabbath."
Again on the tenth day of the seventh month, we have
another, of which we read (verses 27,28), "It shall be a
holy convocation unto you; . . . and ye shall do no work in
that same day." To this day the term shabbath, the same
term by which the seventh-day Sabbath is designated, is
applied, and that, too, in the very strongest manner. Verse
32: "It shall be unto you, (shabbath shabbathon) a sabbath
of sabbatism. p. 10, Para. 1, [NAILED].

The day of atonement was, beyond question, the chief of

the annual sabbaths. It was the sabbath of that class of
sabbaths. Twice more in the same verse the word shabbath is
virtually applied to this day. "From even unto even, shall
ye celebrate your sabbath;" literally, "shall ye sabbath
your sabbath." p. 10, Para. 2, [NAILED].

Now, here are seven days, four of them connected with two
great feasts, the passover and the feast of tabernacles,
and three of them standing independent and alone, all of
the same nature, all devoted to the same purpose, all to be
used in the same manner; that is, there was to be on each
of them a holy convocation, and on all of them alike an
entire suspension of all servile work. Now, can any one
tell us what the difference was between these days? Would
not any term which was applicable to one be equally
applicable to all the others? To one the term sabbath (Heb.
shabbath) is specifically applied. Were these other days
which were exactly like that, -- days of rest and
convocation, -- were these days also sabbaths, or were they
not? The word sabbath means "rest". That is the one sole
idea it conveys, first, last, and all the way between --
"cessation from labor, rest." Here were seven annual days
on which there was to be an entire suspension of labor.
Were these days sabbaths, or were they not? If they were
not, can any one tell us why they were not? And if they
were, would it not be proper to say that the Jews had seven
annual sabbaths? We would be willing to abide by the answer
of any man of average candor and intelligence, to these
questions. p. 11, Para. 1, [NAILED].

A word now with respect to the assertion that the Hebrew

term Shabbath is applied to only one of these annual
sabbaths. All that need be said of this is that it is not
true! Any one who suffers himself to be persuaded that it
is, is being misled by false teachers. The Hebrew shabbath,
like the Greek sabbaton has a variety of definitions.
Sabbaton means sometimes the weekly Sabbath, sometimes the
whole week, sometimes the ceremonial sabbaths of the Jewish
system. So shabbath means sometimes the weekly Sabbath,
sometimes the whole week, sometimes the ceremonial
sabbaths, sometimes the seventh year sabbath, covering the
whole year, as in Lev. 25:2,6,8, where this very term is
used. p. 11, Para. 2, [NAILED].

It means "week" in the last clause of Lev. 23:15: "Seven

sabbaths shall be complete." This is spoken to measure off
the time from the offering of the wave sheaf to the
pentecost. "Seven sabbaths" means a period of forty-nine
days; one "sabbath" would be a period of seven days, or a
week. As the Sabbath marked off time into weeks, the word
came to be used for the whole time from one Sabbath to
another. Thus the Jews reckoned the days of the week as the
"first of the Sabbath, second of the sabbath, third of the
sabbath," and so on, meaning the first, second, third, days
of the week. See quotation from Dr. Lightfoot, in
Robinson's Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. p. 11,
Para. 3, [NAILED].

But the reader is doubtless waiting for an instance where

the word shabbath is applied to some other annual festival
besides the tenth day of the seventh month. It is twice so
applied in Lev. 23:11,15. The day spoken of here is the
first sabbath of the passover feast, as will be apparent
from the following considerations: The paschal lamb was
slain on the 14th day of the month; the 15th was the first
day of the paschal feast, a day of rest and holy
convocation; on the 16th the wave sheaf was offered, and
from this offering of the wave sheaf fifty days were to be
counted to the pentecost; but the day on which the wave
sheaf was offered, was called "the morrow after the
sabbath." What sabbath? -- The day before, that is, the
15th day of the month, the first day of the passover, the
day of rest and holy convocation. This could not be the
weekly Sabbath; for it was to fall on the 15th day of the
first month each year; but the weekly Sabbath did not fall
on the 15th day of the first month each year. The 15th day
of the first month would come on different days of the week
in different years, the same as our 4th of July, 25th of
December, etc. In proof that "the morrow after the sabbath"
was the 16th day of the month, and that the day preceding
it, that is, the 15th, the first day of the passover, is
the day which is called the sabbath (Heb. shabbath,) we
present the following from Smith's Bible Dictionary, edited
by S.W. Barnum. Under "Passover," he says:- p. 12, Para.
1, [NAILED].

"On the 15th, the night being passed, there was a holy
convocation, and during that day no work might be done,
except the preparation of necessary food (Ex. 12:16). . . .
On the 16th of the month, 'the morrow after the sabbath'
(i.e., after the day of holy convocation,) the first sheaf
of harvest was offered and waved by the priest before the
Lord." p. 12, Para. 2, [NAILED].

Under "Pentecost" he says:- p. 13, Para. 1, [NAILED].

"Pentecost (fr. Gr. pentecoste = the fiftieth sc. day from

the second day of the feast of unleavened bread or the
passover). . . I. The time of the festival was calculated
from the second day of the passover, the 16th of Nisan. The
law prescribes that a reckoning should be kept from 'the
morrow after the sabbath' to the morrow after the
completion of the seventh week, which would, of course, be
the fiftieth day (Lev. 23:11,15,16; Deut. 16:9)." p. 13,
Para. 2, [NAILED].

On the expression "morrow after the sabbath," as given in

the foregoing extract, he has this note:-- p. 13, Para. 3,
[NAILED].

"It has been generally held that the 'sabbath' here = the
first day of holy convocation of the passover, the 15th of
Nisan mentioned in Lev. 23:7 (compare 24,32,39). Some have
made the 'Sabbath' here = the seventh day of the week, or
the Sabbath of creation, as the Jewish writers have called
it; and thus the day of pentecost would always fall upon
the first day of the week. But Bahr proves from Josh. 5:11
and Lev. 23:14, that the omer was offered on the 16th of
Nisan." p. 13, Para. 4, [NAILED].

Bagster's Greek Lexicon, under "Pentecoste," says:- p.

13, Para. 5, [NAILED].

"One of the three great Jewish festivals, so called

because it was celebrated on the fiftieth day, reckoning
from the second day of the feast of unleavened bread, i.e.,
from the 16th day of Nisan." p. 13, Para. 6, [NAILED].

Young's Concordance says:- p. 13, Para. 7, [NAILED].

 "Pentecost. Feast on fiftieth day after passover." p. 13,
Para. 8, [NAILED].

If we take "the morrow after the sabbath" to mean the day

following the weekly Sabbath, then the important period of
the fifty days to reach to the great festival of the
pentecost had no fixed starting-point, but was left to
depend on circumstances each year. Thus they would have to
agree on some time when they would commence to reap their
harvest, or designate some one to be the representative of
the nation in this matter, and note the time when the
reaping commenced, then wait till they reached a weekly
Sabbath after that, and then on the morrow after that
Sabbath begin to reckon the fifty days to the pentecost.
The least grain of serious thought will suffice to convince
any one that God never would adopt any such roundabout
methods in any part of his work, that he never left any
important festival to be determined in this hap-hazard
manner, and that the weekly Sabbath was never related in
that manner to any part of that system. As the matter
stood, everything was easy and consistent. By the 15th of
Nisan, the first day of the passover, some portion of the
barley harvest was sure to be ripe; but none were permitted
to reap and eat of it till a sheaf had been offered to the
Lord. The priest had but to see that a sheaf was procured
and waved on the morrow after the passover sabbath, and
then the harvest could proceed. p. 13, Para. 9, [NAILED].

We need not dwell longer on this point. The evidence is

conclusive that the term generally employed to designate
the Sabbath, was applied to the first day of the passover,
and hence that was a sabbath. If the first day was a
sabbath, was not the last day of the feast, which was
exactly like it, a sabbath also? It was so, whether so
expressly named or not. p. 14, Para. 1, [NAILED].

Here, then, were three days, the first and last of the
passover, and the day of atonement, which were sabbaths,
and to which the common term for sabbath is four times
applied. This is sufficient to justify Paul's use of the
term sabbaton (plural) as referring to them in Col. 2:16,
even if we could find no more. But there are other reasons
still. p. 14, Para. 2, [NAILED].

Our next inquiry shall be, Is the assertion true that in

the three other instances where the word "sabbath" occurs
in the common version, namely, the festival of blowing of
trumpets (Lev. 23:24), and the first and last days of the
feast of tabernacles (verse 39),it is wrongly translated,
and should not have been rendered "sabbath," but "rest"? We
will state a few facts which no one who investigates the
subject with any care can fail to perceive, and will then
leave the reader to judge for himself. He will find this
assertion, like the other, to be a bold untruth. p. 14,
Para. 3, [NAILED].

The ordinary word for Sabbath is shabbath. Its definition

is, "cessation, time of rest, Sabbath." The word three
times rendered "sabbath" in Lev. 23:24,39, is shabbathon.
Its definition is, "rest, a time of rest." Both words are
from one common root, shavath, meaning "to cease, to rest."
Both have the same definition. Both are used to designate
Jewish yearly festival days, of which there were seven
exactly alike as has been shown. To two of them the word
shabbath is applied, to three of them the word shabbathon.
Will our critics now tell us the difference between these
words, and why the three instances of shabbathon should not
be rendered "sabbath" also? p. 14, Para. 4, [NAILED].

Gesenius defines shabbathon as follows: "Abstract noun a

keeping of the sabbath, sabbatism, sabbath rites." And it
may be worth while to add that this word, in connection
with shabbath, is also applied to the weekly Sabbath, as in
Ex. 31:15; 32:2,3; Lev. 23:2. In Ex. 16:23 it is the
leading word applied to the weekly Sabbath; thus shabbathon
shabbath-godesh, "the sabbatism of the Sabbath holy unto
the Lord." To apply Gesenius's definition of shabbathon to
the memorial of blowing of trumpets, and to the first and
last days of the feast of tabernacles, where this word
alone is used, we should read: "In the seventh month in the
first day of the month, shall ye have a keeping of a
sabbath." Lev. 23:24. "Also in the fifteenth day of the
seventh month. . . ye shall keep a feast unto the Lord
seven days on the first day shall be a keeping of a
sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a keeping of a
sabbath," or a sabbatism. Now, to say that these days which
were set apart as a "sabbatism," or the keeping of a
sabbath," could not be called "sabbaths," is to reason not
only carelessly, but contrary to all the scriptural and
philological evidence in the case. p. 15, Para. 1,
[NAILED].

But finally and lastly it is asserted that Paul in Col.

2:16, must refer, by the word sabbaths, to the weekly
Sabbath only; for all the Jewish annual sabbaths so-called,
are included in the term holy-day (Greek, heorte, feast-
day.) Truth compels us to brand this, also, as false. In
the passover there were five days, in the feast of
tabernacles, six, between the first and last, which were
the sabbaths of those feasts. These intervening days all
belonged to the feast, and were the heortai, "feast-days,"
but not sabbaths. The word feast-day would include these
days, nothing more. Then there were the pentecost, the day
of blowing of trumpets, and the day of atonement, standing
by themselves, which were not heortai, but sabbata. The
Septuagint uses sabbaton in Lev. 23:15,32, in reference to
the passover sabbath and the day of atonement, and in Lev.
25:2,4, in reference to the seventh year sabbath. p. 15,
Para. 2, [NAILED].

It thus appears, beyond any possibility of reasonable

question, that Paul, in Col. 2:16, had no reference
whatever to the weekly Sabbath of the Lord, but only to the
seven annual sabbaths of the Jews. U.S. REVIEW and HERALD.
Battle Creek, Mich. p. 16, Para. 1, [NAILED].