God Needs No Rest.

 God Rested. 

God Needs No Rest.

Isa 40:28  Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. 

Previously in this current study - mention was made of God's resting being a sign of God completing something, not of His needing time off from a hard job.

How often have you started a project that took a long time to finish and when you finally finish the project, even if you're not physically tired, you have a sense of satisfaction, fulfillment, a sigh of relief (even if you were thrilled and happy doing the entire project)? There comes that special feeling you truly only get when you've finished a project. Of course, comparing any of our projects with God's work of creation is unfathomable, but we get a small glimpse into something that enables us to have a tiny bit of comprehension, yes? 

God completed the work of Creation. The finishing touch, the capstone on creation was a day of recognition of that completed work through a recognized day of no work.   We understand the term holiday don't we? In the sense that if I say this or that day is a holiday it makes it a special day. On that special day we like to have it "off" if we are working, or we like to get paid double if we "have" to work on that special day. A holiday is only a holiday because we a people have made it such. There are plenty of holidays that have only come into being over time- not throughout all time. 

From the internet I get this bit of information-

The first four congressionally designated federal holidays were created in 1870, when Congress granted paid time off to federal workers in the District of Columbia for New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.

From <https://www.google.com/search?q=when+did+the+first+holiday+begin&rlz=1C1AVFC_enUS845US845&oq=when+did+the+first+holiday+begin&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30i395j0i390i395.18894j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8> 

Another tidbit of information-

This time of year "Happy Holidays" is common greeting in United States. But, where and when did the word come from. The word holiday came from an Old English word that was first recorded in 950 AD, as hāligdæg (hālig for "holy" and dæg for "day"). The first recorded spelling as holiday was in 1460 AD. Around the Middle English period, it took on a new meaning as "a day when commoners were exempt from labor". In celebration, people often feasted on a flatfish called butte. Today's halibut got its name from hali or holy and butte or flatfish.

From <https://prolingo.com/blog/where-do-our-holiday-words-come-from/> 

Commoners exempt from labor… granted paid time off to federal workers…  

We all are familiar with this concept and have been for a very long time.

God has made the seventh day of the week His weekly Holy Day and He made it FOR US.   

God memorialized Creation week and never wanted us to forget that we are CREATED beings living in a CREATED world.  

On the various holidays we celebrate, we know the name of the holiday and what it represents, why we are celebrating that holiday.  It's NO different for celebrating the weekly holiday we've been given by our Creator. NO MAN created this holiday, God created it, for US.  

How glorious it is to recognize our God, our Creator! How wondrous it is to take the seventh day Sabbath created for us, and celebrate the glory of God! This is such a special commandment, one of the royal ten laws, a commandment embracing a precept from our very creation, our very beginning as human beings. The importance of this day is right in our face in the very fact it is WEEKLY!  We take holidays that are once a year and make a big huge deal over them. We think about them off and on, but until they are usually close to be celebrated we don't think about them overly much. Yes, you might go out and buy a Christmas present the day after Christmas for the following year, but most people do not do that every day throughout the year or even every week.  We do place importance upon these days- for the most part, not everyone does. Every human being however should comprehend the importance of their existence and God wants us to comprehend HIS glory and our forever need to be thankful for our very lives. 

We are BLESSED to have this HOLY day, and we are BLESSED to be commanded to recognize this HOLY day every Sabbath. 

God insured that we would KNOW beyond a doubt which day of the weekly seven was His Holy day….  God's chosen people of Israel were given the command to recognize the day and they've kept that day since. Jesus kept that day. The Apostles kept that day. We know what day it is without any disputing.  Some like to imagine God changed the day, but He never, ever did. Man dared to, but not God. Why God would ever take His designated day of rest memorializing Creation for all time, and change it is incomprehensible. He could not say- God rested the first day from all He'd created and made… it would be a lie and God does not lie! 

We have this special connection to our very creation, and so many turn their noses up to it in so many ways.  

May God bless us with spiritual comprehension of His TRUTH in all things!

(Excerpt)

CHAPTER III. SOME FIVE-HUNDRED-DOLLAR LOGIC

It must be borne in mind that the book entitled “The Abiding Sabbath” was written to prove “the perpetual obligation of the Lord’s day;” and that by the term “Lord’s day,” the author of the book means, in every instance, the first day of the week. Therefore, “being interpreted,” the book, “The Abiding Sabbath,” is an argument to prove the perpetual obligation of the first day of the week. It is likewise to be remembered that the trustees of Dartmouth College paid the Fletcher prize of five hundred dollars for the essay which composes the book “The Abiding Sabbath.” This certainly is tangible proof that those trustees, and the Committee of Award appointed by them, considered that the object of the essay had been accomplished, and that thereby the perpetual obligation of the first day of the week had been proved. But we are certain that any one who has read the two preceding chapters on this subject, will wonder how, in view of the arguments there used, the author can make it appear that the first day of the week is “the abiding Sabbath.” Well, to tell in a few words what we shall abundantly demonstrate, he does it by directly contradicting every sound argument that he has made, and every principle that he has established. 

In the first chapter of the book, from the scripture “God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made” (Genesis 2:3), he proves the institution of the Sabbath at creation, and says: “Whatever institutions were given to man then, were given for all time.” 

And again: “‘God rested the seventh day,’ and by so doing has given to the law of the Sabbath the highest and strongest sanction possible, even to Deity.... It is therefore-bounded by no limits of time, place, or circumstance, but is of universal and perpetual authority.”

It was the seventh day upon which God rested from the work of creation; it was the seventh day which he then blessed; it was the seventh day which he then sanctified; and he says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” Now if, as Mr. Elliott says, this institution was given to man “for all time,” and that, too, “with the highest and strongest sanction possible even to Deity;” and if it is bounded “by no limits of time, place, or circumstance,” how can it be possible that the first day of the week is the abiding Sabbath? It is clearly and absolutely impossible. The two things cannot stand together. God did not rest the first day of the week. He did not bless, nor did he sanctify, the first day of the week. He has never called the first day of the week the Sabbath; nor as such an institution has he ever given it any sanction of Deity, much less has he ever given it the “highest and strongest sanction possible even to Deity.” Then upon no principle of truth can it ever be made to appear that the first day of the week is the abiding Sabbath. 

Then in Part II, on the fourth commandment,—the “Sabbath of the Law,”—he says of the Sabbath therein given to Israel when God brought them out of Egypt: “The first institution of religion given to the emancipated nation was the very same with the first given to man” (p.110). He says that it has “a meaning not for the Hebrews alone, but for the whole race of mankind;” that “the reason of the commandment recalls the ordinance of creation;” that “the ideas connected with the Sabbath in the fourth commandment are thus of the most permanent and universal meaning;” and that “the institution, in the light of the reasons assigned, is as wide as creation and as eternal as the Creator” (pp. 114, 126). 

And yet into this commandment, which says as plainly as language can speak, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” Mr. Elliott proposes to read the first day as “the abiding Sabbath.” 

Before noticing his reasons for such a step, we would repeat one of his own paragraphs:— 

“Long should pause the erring hand of man before it dares to chip away with the chisel of human reasonings one single word graven on the enduring tables by the hand of the infinite God. What is proposed?

To make an erasure in a Heaven-born code; to expunge one article from the recorded will of the Eternal! Is the eternal tablet of his law to be defaced by a creature’s hand? He who proposes such an act should fortify himself by reasons as holy as God and as mighty as his power. None but consecrated hands could touched the ark of God; thrice holy should be the hands which would dare to alter the testimony which lay within the ark.”— 128, 129. 

And so say we. 

After proving that the ten commandments are of universal and perpetual obligation, he discovers that the decalogue “contains transient elements.” He says:— 

“It may be freely admitted that the decalogue in the form in which it is stated, contains transient elements. These, however, are easily separable. For example, the promise attached to the requirement of filial reverence, ‘that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee,’ has a very evident reference to Israel alone, and is a promise of national perpetuity in possession of the promised land.” 

But lo, just here he discovers that this is not a “transient element,” and that it has not “reference to Israel alone;” for he continues in the very same paragraph:— 

“Even this element is not entirely of limited application, however, for Paul quotes the commandment in his letter to the Christians of Ephesus (Ephesians 6:2), as ‘the first ...with promise,’ evidently understanding the covenant of long life to have a wider scope than simply the Hebrew nationality. 

And it is clear that nothing can be imagined which could give more enduring stability to civil institutions than that law-abiding character which is based on respect for superiors and obedience to their commands.”—Pp. 120, 121. 

His proposition is that “the decalogue contains transient elements.” And to demonstrate his proposition, he produces as an “example,” a “transient element” which he immediately proves is not a transient element at all. Then what becomes of his proposition? Well, by every principle of common logic, it is a miserable failure. But by this new, high-priced kind, this five-hundred-dollar-prize logic, it is a brilliant success; for by it he accomplishes all that he intended when he started out; that is, that by it he might put aside as a “transient element” the seventh day, and swing into its place the seventh part of time. For after proving that his example of a transient element is not a transient element at all, he continues:— 

“This serves to illustrate how we may regard the temporal element in the law of the Sabbath. It does not bind us to the precise day, but to the seventh of our time.” 

To the trustees of Dartmouth College, and to the Committee of Award which they appointed, and to the American Tract Society, it may serve to illustrate such a thing; but to anybody who loves truth, sound reasoning, and fair dealing, it only serves to illustrate the deplorable weakness of the cause in behalf of which resort has to be made to such subterfuges. 

Besides this, his admission that the decalogue contains transient elements is directly contrary to the argument that he has already made on this very subject. On page 116, he had already written of the ten commandments:—

“These statutes are therefore not simply commands or precepts of God; for God may give commandments which have only a transient and local effect; they are in a distinctive sense the word of God, an essential part of that word which ‘abideth’.... By the phrase ‘the ten words,’ as well as in the general scope of Hebrew legislation, the moral law is fully distinguished from the civil and ceremonial law. The first is an abiding statement of the divine will; the last consists of transient ordinances having but a temporary and local meaning.” 

Yet directly in the face of this, he will have it freely admitted that the decalogue “contains transient elements.” Are there transient elements in the divine will? Can that which abideth be transient? And if the decalogue contains transient elements, then wherein is it “fully distinguished” from the “civil and ceremonial law,” which “consists of transient ordinances”? The genuine logic of his position is (1) the ceremonial law consists of transient ordinances; (2) the decalogue is fully distinguished from the ceremonial law; (3) therefore the decalogue consists of nothing transient. But with the aid of this five-hundred-dollar-prize logic it is thus: The ceremonial law consists of transient ordinances. The decalogue is fully distinguished from the ceremonial law. Therefore it may be freely admitted that the decalogue contains transient elements!! And so “with the ceremonial system vanished the Jewish Sabbath,” which he defines to be the seventh day (pp. 177, 190). By one argument on these transient elements, he manages to put away the precise seventh day, and to put in its place “the seventh of our time;” by another he is enabled to abolish the seventh of our time, as well as the precise seventh day, by which he opens the way to insert in the commandment the precise first day as the “abiding Sabbath” and of “perpetual obligation.”

Again we read:—  

“While the Sabbath of Israel had features which enforce and illustrate the abiding Sabbath, it must not be forgotten that it had a wholly distinct existence of its own...Moses really instituted something new, something different from the old patriarchal seventh day.”—P. 134. 

With this read the following:— 

“The first institution of religion given to the emancipated nation was the very same with the first given to man.”—P. 110. 

How the Sabbath of Israel could be the very same with the first given to man, and yet have a wholly distinct existence of its own; how it could be the “very same” with the first given to man, and yet be “something new” 2500 years afterward; how it could be something different from the old patriarchal seventh day, and yet in it there be “still embodied the true Sabbath,” we cannot possibly conceive; but perhaps the genius that can discern in the decalogue transient elements which it proves are not transient at all, could also tell how all these things can be. 

Just one more illustration of the wonderful feats that can be performed by a prize essay. On page 135 he says:— 

“In the Mosaic Sabbath, for the time of its endurance and no longer, was embodied, for a particular people and no others, this permanent institution which was ordained at creation, and which lives now with more excellent glory in the Lord’s day.” 

That is to say: (1) In the Mosaic institution, “for the time of its endurance [1522 years] and no longer,” was embodied an institution which is “rooted in the eternal world” (p. 28), and which is as eternal as the Creator (p. 126); (2) in the Mosaic institution, which was “for a particular people and no others,” was embodied an institution whose “unrelaxed obligation” extends to “every creature,” “to all races of earth and all ages of the world’s history” (pp. 122, 124). 

In other words, in an institution that was for a particular people and no others, for 1522 years and no longer, was embodied an institution that is eternal, and for all races in all ages of the world’s history. 

Now we wish that Mr. Elliott, or some of those who were concerned in paying the five-hundred-dollar prize for this essay, would tell us how it were possible that an institution that is as eternal as the Creator could be embodied in one that was to endure for 1522 years and no longer; and how an institution that is of relaxed obligation upon all races in all ages, could be embodied in one that was for a particular people and no others. And when he has told us that, then we wish he would condescend to inform us how in the Mosaic Sabbath there could be embodied three such diverse elements as (1) the “permanent institution which was ordained at creation,” which was the seventh day; (2) “something new,” which he says was “not improbably a different day;” and (3) “the institution which lives now with more excellent glory in the Lord’s day,” which he says is the first day of the week. 

We have not the most distant idea, however, that Mr. Elliott, or any one else, will ever explain any of these things. They cannot be explained. They are absolute contradictions throughout. But by them he has paved the way by which he intends to bring in the first day of the week as the abiding Sabbath, and they are a masterly illustration of the methods by which that institution is made to stand. (End excerpt)