The Law of God

Questions or points in this section...

The Old Covenant in the lives of NT Christians

The changed law in Hebrews 7:12

The sabbath days are a shadow

Every day is considered to be a sabbath

The historical argument for first-day observance

The ministration of death and the Ten Commandments

The Old Testament should not be the basis for belief

Doing good should not be based on the Ten Commandments

If the Ten Commandments are still binding they must be kept the same way

The significance of redemption as compared to creation

The Sabbath rest versus Sunday meetings

Which laws in the Bible were a shadow?

Point 1: The Old Covenant in the lives of NT Christians

Your views regarding the seventh-day Sabbath are a misconception of the place of the Old Covenant in the lives of New Testament Christians.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page                   Anonymous

Answer:

Thank you for your thoughts. In order to have a correct understanding of the old covenant we must first gain a Bible definition of what it is. The only verse in the KJV Bible that uses the two words “old” and “covenant” in the same verse is Hebrews 8:13. Let us read the context to get a clearer picture of its meaning.

“But now hath he [Jesus Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.” (Hebrews 8:6)

Notice that a covenant is established upon promises. A covenant really is a promise or set of promises. I could make a covenant with you that if you pay me a certain sum of money, I will build you a house. That would be a covenant based upon two promises—you promise to pay the money and I promise to build you a house. The writer of Hebrews said that the new covenant was established on better promises than the old covenant.

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” (Hebrews 8:7)

Here we find that the first covenant had problems. There were faults in the covenant. There were promises made that were not fulfilled, and thus they were faulty promises. Who do you suppose made the faulty promises, God or the Israelites? Paul makes it clear that the fault was with Israel.

“For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” (Hebrews 8:8)

The Jewish nation made faulty promises to God, and thus made the first covenant a faulty covenant. Notice what the Bible says about the first covenant. “And he [Moses] took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.” (Exodus 24:7, 8) Notice that the covenant was based upon promises. God’s promises and the Jewish nation’s promises. God promised many blessings to the Jewish nation, and the Jewish nation promised to be obedient to all that the Lord said. Anyone who promises to do all that the Lord commands is making a faulty promise, because on our own we have no strength to do the Lord’s commands. So God said, in the Old Testament book of Jeremiah, chapter 31, and quoted in Hebrews chapter 8, that He would make a new covenant with the house of Israel.

“Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.” (Hebrews 8:9)

Notice that God does not make the new covenant according to the covenant He made with Israel, because the Israelites did not continue in His covenant. The Israelites did not keep their end of the bargain. They made faulty promises and did not keep them. The fault was wholly with the Israelites and their promises, and not with God or His promises.

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.” (Hebrews 8:10)

Here is the Old and New Testament explanation of the new covenant. The new covenant is the Lord putting His laws into the hearts and minds of His people. The moral law that the Jews promised to keep would now be placed in the hearts of God’s people. God said, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.” (Ezekiel 36:26, 27)

Notice where the promises are in the new covenant. It is not God promising to bless and the people promising to obey. It is God promising to bless and God promising to cause you to obey—He promises to do the work in you Himself, if you will allow Him to do it. The new covenant is based solely upon God’s promises, and therefore must be faultless, for there are no faults in God. God promises, and He performs. He “is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.” (Jude 1:24) This is the new covenant.

“And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.” (Hebrews 8:11)

“For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” (Hebrews 8:12, 13)

Notice it is the old covenant that decayeth and is ready to vanish away, not the law of God. Paul says, “the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” (Romans 7:12) He also said, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31) And again, “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” (1 Timothy 1:8) David said, “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.” (Psalms 19:7) It is certain that there is no fault with God’s perfect law, and it could not possibly be the old covenant. The old covenant was based upon the promises of God and the promises of Israel. It was Israel’s promises that were faulty, which made the old covenant to be ready to vanish away.

“Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.” (Hebrews 9:1)

The first covenant had the Levitical priesthood who offered sacrifices and performed ceremonies required by the old covenant. There were many laws relating to the priesthood, the sacrifices, and the sanctuary which are not needed in the new covenant.

This point and its answer were printed in the March 2002 issue of Present Truth.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page

Point 2: The changed law in Hebrews 7:12

Hebrews 7:12 tells us that “the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change in the law.” Today we live in the New Testament under the law of Christ; not in the Old Testament under the law of Moses.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page                   Anonymous

Answer:

Notice the argument in Hebrews chapter seven. The whole chapter is taken up with arguments proving that Christ is a priest of a much higher order than the Levitical priests. The writer of Hebrews says that since the priesthood was changed there is “of necessity a change in the law.” Now, this argument could only be true and hold weight if it had reference to laws relating to the priesthood and their duties. For example, the government has written many laws relating to automobile transportation. If there becomes a new mode of transportation, entirely different than automobile transportation, whereby automobile transportation is completely done away, then there must be “of necessity a change in the law.” What law? Laws prohibiting murder? Certainly not! The only laws that “of necessity” have to be changed are the laws relating to transportation. In like manner, the only laws Paul could possibly be referring to here are laws relating to the priesthood and their duties.

We are living in the New Testament under the law of God and His Christ, and not in the Old Testament under the law of Moses. This is true. The law of Moses is not the first 39 books of the Bible, often called “the Old Testament.” Notice how Jesus distinguishes the law of Moses from the rest of the books of the Old Testament. Jesus said, “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” (Luke 24:44) The “law of Moses” is the first five books of the Bible, called the Pentateuch by the Jews. In the Bible “the law of God” is not to be confused with “the law of Moses.” Moses had nothing whatever to do with the writing of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments say nothing of the priesthood, the sacrificial system, or the old covenant. The Ten Commandments were written with God’s own finger and were spoken with His own lips from Mount Sinai. God said, “My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.” (Psalms 89:34) God has never broken His covenant; only man has done that. Nor has He ever, or will He ever, change what is gone out of His lips.

God’s law is so holy, so pure, and so unchangeable that the only way anyone could be forgiven for breaking His law is if One equal to that law would step in, to suffer the penalty for violating that law, as a substitute for the transgressor. If God could have changed His law, or relaxed its obligations, then Christ would not have had to die for our sins. Paul wrote, “Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” (Galatians 3:21) “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Galatians 2:21) The fact that Christ died for our sins proves conclusively that God’s law cannot be changed.

Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-19) It is evident that when Jesus said “law” in this text He was referring to the Ten Commandments, for He mentioned the commandments immediately afterward, when explaining His words. He then began expounding upon two of the Ten Commandments. He said, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.… Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery.” (Matthew 5:21, 27) In Christ’s explanation of these commandments He never relaxed their requirements but, on the contrary, he always increased their meaning and importance. Just as prophesied, Christ magnified the law and made it honourable. “The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.” (Isaiah 42:21)

This point and its answer were printed in the March 2002 issue of Present Truth.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page

Point 3: The sabbath days are a shadow

Colossians 2:17 refers to “the sabbath days” as “a shadow of things to come.”

Back to Menu                   Top of Page                   Anonymous

Answer:

I am glad you pointed out that the sabbath days are “a shadow of things to come.” Notice this verse in context:

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ… 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 in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ… Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?” (Colossians 2:8, 14, 16, 17, 20-23)

Paul was concerned about men coming to the Colossians and spoiling them “after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world.” Do you think Paul could possibly have been referring to the seventh-day Sabbath as “the tradition of men,” “the rudiments of the world,” or “the commandments and doctrines of men?” Certainly not! Paul goes on to say that Christ blotted out “the handwriting of ordinances that was against us” by “nailing it to his cross.” Is the seventh-day Sabbath, which is the fourth commandment, “the handwriting of ordinances that was against us?” If we say “Yes,” we must have some Scriptural basis for making this claim. The Sabbath was never called an “ordinance” nor was it ever said, or could it ever be said, to be “against us.” Jesus said, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.” (Mark 2:27) The Sabbath was made for man’s benefit not as a hindrance against him.

Notice the list that Paul gives, which he refers to as “rudiments of the world,” “the tradition of men,” and “the commandments and doctrines of men.” He lists “meat,” “drink,” “respect of an holyday,” “the new moon,” and “the sabbath days.” Each one in this list, after the death of Christ, are the traditions of men. The Greek word eorth that was translated here as “holyday” was used 27 times in the New Testament, 26 of which it was translated “feast,” such as the feast of passover, unleavened bread, firstfruits, tabernacles, etc. “The sabbath days” here is linked with the feast days, new moons, and meat and drink, proving that it has reference to ceremonial sabbath days of the sacrificial system. The first and last days of the Jewish feasts were called sabbath days. They were distinct and separate from the weekly “Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” It is these sabbaths that were done away with at the death of Christ. Had the Sabbath here been mentioned along with other of the Ten Commandments it would have been clear that it referred to the weekly Sabbath. But the fact that it is mentioned with ceremonial feasts, new moons, and laws regarding meat and drink offerings proves that Paul must have been referring to the ceremonial sabbaths rather than one of the Ten Commandments of the moral law.

Several Bible commentaries point out this fact as well.

Notice what a few commentaries have to say about this verse:

“Or of the sabbath days. Gr, ‘of the sabbaths.’ The word Sabbath in the Old Testament is applied not only to the seventh day, but to all the days of holy rest that were observed by the Hebrews, and particularly to the beginning and close of their great festivals. There is, doubtless, reference to those days in this place, as the word is used in the plural number, and the apostle does not refer particularly to the Sabbath properly so called. There is no evidence, from this passage, that he would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. If he had used the word in the singular number —‘THE Sabbath’—it would then, of course, have been clear that he meant to teach that that commandment had ceased to be binding, and that a sabbath was no longer to be observed. But the use of the term in the plural number, and the connexion [sic], show that he had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial and typical law—and not to the moral law, or the ten commandments. No part of the moral law—no one of the ten commandments—could be spoken of as ‘a shadow of good things to come.’ These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal obligation.” (Barnes New Testament Notes on Colossians 1:16, all emphasis in the original)

“A holy-day—sabbath-days; in the original, a festival—sabbaths. The days referred to are those required to be observed in the ceremonial law—days associated by God with meats, drinks, and new moons. The passage does not refer to the Sabbath of the moral law, associated with the commands forbidding theft, murder, and adultery. This weekly Sabbath was never against men or contrary to them, but was always for them, and promotive of their highest good. The observance of it caused them to ride upon the high places of the earth, and to possess the heritage of God’s people. Isa. 58:13,14; Jer. 17:21-27.” (Family New Testament Notes on Colossians 1:16)

“The sabbath—Omit ‘THE,’ which is not in the Greek (compare Note, see JFB on ‘Ga. 4:10’). ‘SABBATHS’ (not ‘the sabbaths’) of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Le. 23:32, 37-39). The weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days. Le. 23:38 expressly distinguished ‘the sabbath of the Lord’ from the other sabbaths. A positive precept is right because it is commanded, and ceases to be obligatory when abrogated; a moral precept is commanded eternally, because it is eternally right.… the sabbath is still needed and is therefore still linked with the other nine commandments, as obligatory in the spirit, though the letter of the law has been superseded by that higher spirit of love which is the essence of law and Gospel alike (Ro. 13:8-10).” (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary on Colossians 1:16, all emphasis in the original)

This point and its answer were printed in the March 2002 issue of Present Truth.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page

Point 4: Every day is considered to be a sabbath

Only through Christ can we really experience, enjoy, and keep the Sabbath as originally intended by God. The Sabbath, from the point of view of the New Covenant, is no longer signified only by a single day in a week. Now, every day of our Christian walk is a Sabbath day with Christ!

Back to Menu                   Top of Page                   Anonymous

Answer:

It is true that only through Christ can we truly experience and keep the Sabbath. However, that fact does not remove the obligations of the Sabbath commandment. For example, Jesus said, “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28) The only way we can truly keep the seventh commandment is if we have Christ in our heart. By pointing this out, Jesus in no way sought to remove the obligations of the seventh commandment, but rather showed its deeper meaning. Understanding the spiritual meaning of the law in no way removes the physical aspects of the law. Just as it is impossible to keep the spiritual aspect of the seventh commandment while transgressing that law physically, it is impossible to keep the spiritual aspect of the Sabbath commandment while transgressing that law physically. A man could ever so piously profess to keep the spiritual aspect of the second commandment prohibiting idol worship, while at the same time bowing down to idols. No matter how exalted his opinion of his spiritual obedience, the physical aspect of his life proves that he is a transgressor.

If the point stressed in the New Testament is no longer the day of Sabbath, why did Christ and His apostles keep the literal Sabbath day throughout their lives? Why did neither Christ nor His apostles ever indicate that the obligations of the fourth commandment have been relaxed or abrogated? I have heard people tell me that every day is the Sabbath to them. However, this cannot be true for at least three reasons. 1) To keep the Sabbath a person must cease from physical labors, which cannot be done every day or starvation will be the result. 2) The commandment says, not only that we must not work on the seventh day but, that we must work on “the six working days.” (Ezekiel 46:1; Exodus 20:9) 3) It is impossible to keep a day holy that has never been made holy to begin with. “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.” (Genesis 2:3) He “rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” (Exodus 20:11) There is only one day of the week which God blessed and made holy. No matter how holy or upright a man may be, it is impossible for him to bless or make a day holy.

When God blesses something that thing changes. When He blessed a field it produced more abundantly, when He blessed a womb, it brought forth children, when He blessed Samson he became strong. God blessed a period of time, the seventh day of the week. That day is different from any other day because it has a blessing upon it, and it was set apart by God and made holy. Man cannot alter that blessing no matter how hard he tries. There is no Scripture in the Bible that indicates that God has removed His blessing from the seventh day of the week, or that He blessed any other day. In order for every day to be the Sabbath, God would have to bless each of the other six days and make them holy, and then command us to keep those days holy. Yet there is no record of such a command or blessing. There is no indication in the Bible that Christ, or any of His apostles, considered any other day to be the Sabbath other than the one God had blessed and made holy, the seventh day of the week.

This point and its answer were printed in the March 2002 issue of Present Truth.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page

Point 5: The historical argument for first-day observance

Some may ask the question, “Since the Sabbath of the Old Testament is a type of the rest found in Christ, why do so many people put an emphasis on Sunday any more than any other day of the week?” The record left to us in the New Testament and in church history shows us that the observance of the first day of the week became common practice since the beginning of the church.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page                   Anonymous

Answer:

This is absolutely not true! There is no record in the New Testament that the apostles regarded the first day of the week above any other day, nor is this idea demonstrated by church history. To plainly illustrate this fact, please read the following excerpt from the book entitled, History of the Sabbath and First Day of the Week, by John Nevins Andrews:

“But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down.” (Acts 13:14)

By invitation of the rulers of the synagogue, Paul delivered an extended address, proving that Jesus was the Christ. In the course of these remarks he used the following language:-

“For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.” (Verse 27)

When Paul’s discourse was concluded, we read:-

“And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. [Footnote: Dr. Bloomfield has the following note on this text: “The words, eis to metaxn sabb., are by many commentators supposed to mean ‘on some intermediate week-day.’ But that is refuted by verse 44, and the sense expressed in our common version is, no doubt, the true one. It is adopted by the best recent commentators, and confirmed by the ancient versions.” Greek Testament with English notes, vol. i. p. 521. And Prof. Hacket has a similar note. - Commentary on Acts, p. 233.] Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.” (Verses 42-44)

These texts show, 1. That by the term Sabbath in the book of Acts is meant that day on which the Jewish people assembled in the synagogue to listen to the voices of the prophets. 2. That as this discourse was fourteen years after the resurrection of Christ, and the record of it by Luke was some thirty years after that event, it follows that the alleged change of the Sabbath at the resurrection of Christ had not, even after many years, come to the knowledge of either Luke or Paul. 3. That here was a remarkable opportunity to mention the change of the Sabbath, had it been true that the Sabbath had been changed in honor of Christ’s resurrection. For when Paul was asked to preach the same words the next Sabbath, he might have answered that the following day was now the proper day for divine worship. And Luke, in placing this incident upon record, could not well avoid the mention of this new day, had it been true that another day had become the Sabbath of the Lord. 4. That as this second meeting pertained almost wholly to Gentiles, it cannot be said in this case that Paul preached upon the Sabbath out of regard to the Jews. On the contrary, the narrative strongly indicates Paul’s regard for the Sabbath as the proper day for divine worship. 5. Nor can it be denied that the Sabbath was well understood by the Gentiles in this city, and that they had some degree of regard for it, a fact which will be corroborated by other texts.

Several years after these things, the apostles assembled at Jerusalem to consider the question of circumcision.” (Acts 15) “Certain men which came down from Judea,” finding the Gentiles uncircumcised, had “taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved.” Had they found the Gentiles neglecting the Sabbath, unquestionably this would have first called out their rebuke. It is indeed worthy of notice that no dispute at this time existed in the church relative to the observance of the Sabbath; for none was brought before this apostolic assembly. Yet had it been true that the change of the Sabbath was then advocated, or that Paul had taught the Gentiles to neglect the Sabbath, without doubt those who brought up the question of circumcision would have urged that of the Sabbath with even greater earnestness. That the law of Moses, the observance of which was under discussion in this assembly, is not the ten commandments, is evident from several decisive facts. 1. Because that Peter calls the code under consideration a yoke which neither their fathers nor themselves were able to bear. But James expressly calls that royal law, which, on his own showing, embodies the ten commandments, a law of liberty. 2. Because that this assembly did decide against the authority of the law of Moses; and yet James, who was a member of this body, did some years afterward solemnly enjoin obedience to the commandments, affirming that he who violated one was guilty of all. (Acts 15:10, 28, 29; James 2:8-12) 3. Because the chief feature in the law of Moses as here presented was circumcision. (Verses 1, 5) But circumcision was not in the ten commandments; and were it true that the law of Moses includes these commandments, circumcision would not in that case be a chief feature of that law. 4. Finally, because that the precepts still declared obligatory are not properly either of the ten commandments. These were, first, the prohibition of meats offered to idols; second, of blood; third, of things strangled; and fourth, of fornication. (Verse 29; 21:25) Each of these precepts may be often found in the books of Moses, (Exodus 34:15, 16; Numbers 25:2; Leviticus 17:13, 14; Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Genesis 34; Leviticus 19:29) and the first and last ones come under the second and seventh commandments respectively; but neither of these cover but a part of that which is forbidden in either commandment. It is evident, therefore, that the authority of the ten commandments was not under consideration in this assembly, and that the decision of that assembly had no relation to those precepts. For otherwise the apostles released the Gentiles from all obligation to eight of the ten commandments, and from the greater prohibitions contained in the other two.

It is evident that those greatly err who represent the Gentiles as released from the obligation of the Sabbath by this assembly. The question did not come before the apostles on this occasion; a strong proof that the Gentiles had not been taught to neglect the Sabbath, as they had to omit circumcision, which was the occasion of its being brought before the apostles at Jerusalem. Yet the Sabbath was referred to in this very assembly as an existing institution, and that, too, in connection with the Gentile Christians. Thus when James pronounced sentence upon the question, he used the following language:-

“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God; but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” (Acts 15:19-21)

This last fact is given by James as a reason for the course proposed toward the brethren among the Gentiles. “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” From this it is apparent that the ancient custom of divine worship upon the Sabbath was not only preserved by the Jewish people and carried with them into every city of the Gentiles, but that the Gentile Christians did attend these meetings. Otherwise the reason assigned by James would lose all its force, as having no application to this case. That they did attend them strongly attests the Sabbath as the day of divine worship with the Gentile churches.

That the ancient Sabbath of the Lord had neither been abrogated nor changed prior to this meeting of the apostles, is strongly attested by the nature of the dispute here adjusted. And the close of their assembly beheld the Bible Sabbath still sacredly enthroned within the citadel of the fourth commandment. After this, in a vision of the night, Paul was called to visit Macedonia. In obedience to this call he came to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia. Thus Luke records the visit:-

“And we were in that city abiding certain days. And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshiped God, heard us; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” (Acts 16:12-14)

This does not appear to have been a gathering of Jews, but of Gentiles, who, like Cornelius, were worshipers of the true God. Thus it is seen that the church of the Philippians originated with a pious assembly of Sabbath-keeping Gentiles. And it is likely that Lydia and those employed by her in business, who were evidently observers of the Sabbath, were the means of introducing the gospel into their own city of Thyatira.

“Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul, as his manner was, [Footnote: Paul’s manner is exemplified by the following texts, in all of which it would appear that the meetings in question were upon the Sabbath. Acts 13:5; 14:1; 17:10,17; 18:19; 19:8.] went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.… And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.” (Acts 17:1-4)

Such was the origin of the Thessalonian church. That it was an assembly of Sabbath-keepers at its beginning admits of no doubt. For besides the few Jews who received the gospel through the labors of Paul, there was a great multitude of devout Greeks; that is, of Gentiles who had united themselves with the Jews in the worship of God upon the Sabbath. We have a strong proof of the fact that they continued to observe the Sabbath after their reception of the gospel in the following words of Paul addressed to them as a church of Christ:-

“For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus.” (1 Thessalonians 2:14)

The churches in Judea, as we have seen, were observers of the Sabbath of the Lord. The first Thessalonian converts, before they received the gospel, were Sabbath-keepers, and when they became a Christian church they adopted the churches in Judea as their proper examples. And this church was adopted as an example of the churches of Macedonia and Achaia. In this number were included the churches of Philippi and of Corinth. Thus writes Paul:-

“And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost; so that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia. For from you sounded out the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to Godward is spread abroad.” (1 Thessalonians 1:7, 8)

After these things, Paul came to Corinth. Here, he first found Aquila and Priscilla.

“And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them and wrought; for by their occupation they were tent makers. And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” (Acts 18:3, 4)

At this place also Paul found Gentiles as well as Jews in attendance upon the worship of God on the Sabbath. The first members of the church at Corinth were therefore observers of the Sabbath at the time when they received the gospel; and, as we have seen, they adopted as their pattern the Sabbath-keeping church of Thessalonica, who in turn patterned after the churches in Judea.

The first churches were founded in the land of Judea. All their members had from childhood been familiar with the law of God, and well understood the precept, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Besides this precept, all these churches had a peculiar memento of the Sabbath. They knew from our Lord himself that the time was coming when they must all suddenly flee from that land. And in view of this fact, they were to pray that the moment of their sudden flight might not be upon the Sabbath; a prayer which was designed, as we have seen, to preserve the sacredness of the Sabbath. That the churches in Judea were composed of Sabbath-keeping members, admits therefore of no doubt.

Of the churches founded outside the land of Judea, whose origin is given in the book of Acts, nearly all began with Jewish converts. These were Sabbath-keepers when they received the gospel. Among these, the Gentile converts were engrafted. And it is worthy of notice that in a large number of cases, those Gentiles are termed “devout Greeks,” “religious proselytes,” persons that “worshiped God,” that feared God and that “prayed to God alway.” (Acts 10:2, 4, 7, 30-35; 13:43; 14:1; 16:13-15; 17:4, 10-12) These Gentiles, at the time of their conversion to the gospel, were, as we have seen, worshipers of God upon the Sabbath with the Jewish people. When James had proposed the kind of letter that should be addressed by the apostles to the Gentile converts, he assigned a reason for its adoption, the force of which can now be appreciated: “For Moses,” said he, “of old time hath in EVERY CITY them that preach him, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day.” The Sabbatarian character of the apostolic churches is thus clearly shown. (History of the Sabbath and First Day of the Week, by John Nevins Andrews, pages 167-174)

The following chapters in this excellent book point out conclusively that the early Christians, for many years after the death of the apostles, did not regard the first day of the week as anything but a common working day.

Even if church history demonstrated that some early Christians regarded Sunday to be holy, would that be sufficient license to break one of God’s commandments? We can find the history of early Christians believing and practicing many things, but does this fact prove that we must follow their example? Certainly not! The Bible is our authority, not church tradition. Jesus asked, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3) “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

This point and its answer were printed in the March 2002 issue of Present Truth.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page

Point 6: The ministration of death and the Ten Commandments

In 2 Corinthians chapter 3 there is a very clear passage directly referring to the Ten Commandments. Paul refers to them as “the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones.” He is saying that while this ministration of death is glorious, the ministration of the New Testament, the New Covenant, exceeds in glory. So this ministration of death, the Ten Commandments, is inferior, and in verse 11 he says that they have been done away with. A very simple and clear message. I am simple enough to accept it for what it says.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page                   Anonymous

Answer:

I am certainly glad that you are willing “to accept it for what it says.” Let us read these verses in context, one at a time, to see what they say.

“But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away.” (2 Corinthians 3:7)

There is no doubt that the phrase “written and engraven in stones” refers to the Ten Commandments. Notice that Paul does not say that that which was “written and engraven in stones” was done away, but he said the “glory was to be done away.” Paul said that the “ministration” of the law “was glorious,” “which glory was to be done away.” It is clear from this verse that Paul was not referring to the Ten Commandments as being “done away.” This fact is made even more certain when we look at other verses written by Paul. The beginning of Romans chapter three is taken up with Paul proving, from the Old Testament, that every man is a sinner in need of a Saviour. He wrote, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” (Romans 3:19) Here Paul says that “the law” speaks that “all the world may become guilty before God,” “that every mouth may be stopped.” According to Paul, the law speaks to every man, convicting them of their guilt. A law that has been done away could not possibly convict a man of his guilt. If I am driving down the road at 70 miles per hour in an area where the speed limit used to be 55, but now has been done away, can that abolished law possibly convict me that I am guilty of breaking it? Certainly not! An abolished law is useless, and unable to convict of sin.

Notice how Paul ends Romans chapter three. After explaining how we can be justified of our transgression of the law, he wrote, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31) It would be pointless and ridiculous for Paul to say that we establish an abolished law. Furthermore, he said clearly that we do not make void the law. In other words, the law is still in effect.

This point is brought out even more forcefully by the words of James, when he wrote, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” (James 2:10-12) James was evidently referring to the Ten Commandment law as “the law of liberty” by which we “shall be judged.” You can be certain that we will not be judged by a law that has been abolished.

Also notice that James said that if you break the Ten Commandment law you are a “transgressor of the law.” John wrote, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1 John 3:4) If the law has been abolished, it is not possible for anyone to transgress it and, hence, there would be no such thing as sin or sinners, and no need for a Saviour. Certainly nobody could accept such an absurd idea, yet if we make the claim that the law is abolished we have no choice but accept the inescapable conclusion that sin is non-existent and needs no pardon.

Again, Paul wrote, “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” (Romans 7:7) It is certain that Paul is referring to the Ten Commandment law because he quoted the tenth commandment. He goes on to say, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good… I consent unto the law that it is good.” (Romans 7:12, 16) It is evident that in 2 Corinthians 3:7 Paul was not referring to the law as being done away, but to the glory that attended Moses’ ministration of that law. Furthermore, God said that the New Covenant consisted in Him taking that same law and writing it in our hearts. (Hebrews 8:10) As we continue with the remaining verses of second Corinthians chapter three we will see this point brought out more clearly.

“How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.” (2 Corinthians 3:8, 9)

Notice that Paul is referring to the ministration of the law as glorious, rather than the law itself.

“For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.” (2 Corinthians 3:10, 11)

What is done away? Some mistakenly assume that this refers to the Ten Commandments. However, we have seen that this is not possible. Furthermore, the context clearly refers to Moses’ ministration as being glorious. It is Moses’ ministration, and the glory that attended it, that was done away, not the law itself. Now, the ministration of righteousness exceeds the glory of the ministration of Moses. The same Ten Commandment law is being ministered, but now it is ministered by the Spirit, “that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:4)

“Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.” (2 Corinthians 3:12, 13)

Notice, Paul said that the vail over Moses’ face hid “that which is abolished.” What was the vail hiding? Not the Ten Commandment law engraved in the stones which he was holding in his hands, but the glory of Moses’ ministration of that law. That is what was abolished.

“But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.” (2 Corinthians 3:14)

Now, through Christ, we can read the Old Testament without the vail. The Old Testament becomes a new book to those who understand the mission of Christ. The vail was taken away from the two men who were on the road to Emmaus when Jesus, “beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:27) After they read the Old Testament for the first time without the vail, “they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Luke 24:32)

When we read the whole passage of second Corinthians chapter three in its full context it is indeed very clear.

This point and its answer were printed in the March 2002 issue of Present Truth.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page

Point 7: The Old Testament should not be the basis for belief

We should not find our basis for anything we believe or practice in the Old Testament.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page                   Anonymous

Answer:

I think you would have had a very difficult time trying to convince the writers of the New Testament of this theory.

Quite contrarily, there are many things we believe and practice which find their basis in the 39 books of the Old Testament. For example, the creation story as given in Genesis chapter one is recorded nowhere in the New Testament. Do we believe it? I certainly do. The story of the fall of Lucifer as recorded in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 is found nowhere in the New Testament. Do we believe it? I certainly do. The prohibition against a man marrying his sister or cousin is nowhere found in the New Testament. Do we obey this prohibition? I certainly do. The instruction to punish children with a rod is nowhere found in the New Testament. Do we believe this counsel? I certainly do. The list goes on and on. There are many good principles that we practice as Christians, which are only found in the Old Testament. Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Matthew 5:17) Anything from the first 39 books of the Bible, that has been done away with, is clearly made known in the New Testament; such as the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, the feast days, etc. These are mentioned particularly in the New Testament as having passed away, and there would be no need for them to be mentioned specifically if the entire 39 books of the Old Testament have been made null and void.

Furthermore, if we wish to discard the entire 39 books of the Old Testament we would have to discard much of the writings of the New Testament as well, because much of it is made up of quotations or allusions to the Old Testament. In addition to that, whenever the New Testament mentioned the Scriptures it was specifically referring to the Old Testament, because the New Testament was either not yet written or in the process of being written, and what was written was very scarce, with very few copies to go around.

Notice a few New Testament references to the Scriptures that will give us some understanding of how the New Testament Christians believed concerning the Old Testament Scriptures. Jesus said, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matthew 22:29) He rebuked the church leaders for not knowing the Old Testament Scriptures. Jesus “opened” the disciples’ “understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.” (Luke 24:45) Jesus said, “the scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35) Phillip preached Jesus to the eunuch using the Old Testament Scriptures. “Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” (Acts 8:35) “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.” (Acts 17:2) The Bereans “were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11) “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4) “Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” (Romans 16:25, 26)

Paul wrote to Timothy and said “that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:15-17) When Paul wrote this He was speaking specifically about the Old Testament.

Based on all the verses we just read, it is extremely evident that none of the apostles had the slightest idea that the Old Testament Scriptures were null and void. To them, that was their Bible, what they used to gain comfort, learn of salvation, learn doctrine, and convince the gainsayer. I am certain that nobody could have convinced Paul, James, John, or the other disciples that the Old Testament was null and void and that they should not believe or practice anything that was based upon it.

This point and its answer were printed in the March 2002 issue of Present Truth.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page

Point 8: Doing good should not be based on the Ten Commandments

As Christians, we do not have any other gods or graven images, not because the Ten Commandments forbid it, but because the whole concept of false gods is condemned in the New Testament. We do not take the name of the Lord in vain, not because the Ten Commandments forbid it, but because we find all types of profanity strictly forbidden in the New Testament. We honor our parents, not because the Ten Commandments command it, but because we are taught in the New Testament to obey and honor our parents. We do not kill, not because the Ten Commandments forbid it, but because the New Testament warns us against it. We do not commit adultery, not because the Ten Commandments forbid it, but because the New Testament strictly forbids it. We do not steal, not because the Ten Commandments forbid it, but because the New Testament forbids it. We do not bear false witness against our neighbor, not because it is forbidden in the Ten Commandments, but because the New Testament prohibits falsehood. We do not covet, not because the Ten Commandments forbid it, but because the New Testament speaks against it.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page                   Anonymous

Answer:

I noticed you left out one of the Ten Commandments in your commentary. You did not mention the Sabbath commandment. Many people have the idea that Christ abolished the Ten Commandments and reinstated nine of them, all but the Sabbath command. This idea would have some reasonable basis for being accepted if the Bible had recorded that the Ten Commandments have been abolished or any of them reinstated. Many people point out the fact that the fourth commandment is never quoted in the New Testament, attempting to use this as proof that it is not binding upon New Testament Christians. However, the first three commandments are not quoted in the New Testament either. Many people assume that since New Testament writers quoted six of the Ten Commandments that they somehow reinstated those commandments. However, when these commandments were quoted in the New Testament they were quoted in such a way that it was taken for granted that they were already in force, rather than trying to reinstate them. If merely quoting one of the Ten Commandments reinstates that commandment, then you have the last six commandments being reinstated several times. That would mean that God gave the Ten Commandments originally, then abolished that law, and reinstated it through Christ, then abolished it again, and reinstated it through Paul, then abolished it again and reinstated it through James. This would make God out to be very unsure of what He was doing and full of variableness. But the Bible says, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17) There is no record anywhere in the New or Old Testaments that the Ten Commandments have been abolished even once. Therefore it is impossible for any of them to be reinstated.

Jesus gave us one new commandment, which in no way abolished any of the Ten Commandments, but rather magnified them and made them honourable. He said, “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” (John 13:34) Prior to this we were commanded to love one another as we love ourselves. Now we are commanded to love one another as Christ loved us. John wrote, “Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.” (1 John 2:7) John expressed no hint that he had the idea that the Ten Commandments had been abolished.

This point and its answer were printed in the March 2002 issue of Present Truth.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page

Point 9: If the Ten Commandments are still binding they must be kept the same way

If the Ten Commandments are still binding today they need to be observed in the same way. One of the commandments given is “Thou shalt not kill.” But the Israelites went to war with their enemies.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page                   Anonymous

Answer:

The Ten Commandments are still binding, yet their requirements are of a much higher nature now that Christ expounded on the law and sent His Spirit to abide in us “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:4) The Ten Commandments prohibit us from murdering, yet Jesus’ explanation of that law even prohibits us from being angry with our brother. This elevated the law’s requirements rather than relaxing them.

Also, when God said, “Thou shalt not kill,” He used the Hebrew word xur ratsach which means, “to murder, slay 1a1) premeditated, 1a2) accidental, 1a3) as avenger, 1a4) slayer (intentional).” (Brown-Driver-Brigg’s Hebrew Lexicon) This Hebrew word was used 47 times in the Old Testament. In every case it is used as either premeditated murder, accidental murder or avenging the intentional murder of someone else. It is never used in a case where God commanded Israel to kill their enemies in battle. God was not breaking His own command, or causing His people to break His own command, when He commanded them to kill their enemies in battle. Yet, we are no longer under a theocracy where God directly commands and instructs the government leaders. Christ gave us a deeper meaning of the law, and under the New Testament we are to love our enemies and do good to them that hate us. (Matthew 5:44) This does not abolish the old commandment, but elevates it and makes it honourable.

This point and its answer were printed in the March 2002 issue of Present Truth.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page

Point 10: The significance of redemption as compared to creation

Some people place too much emphasis on the seventh day of the week, stating that God blessed it and made it holy and commanded us observe it as a memorial to creation. Is the significance of creation more valuable than redemption that we should observe and keep the sabbath in memory of it? The resurrection day fell on the first day of the week, not on the seventh day. Which is more important in the life of a born-again Christian: creation (memorialized by observing the seventh day), or the resurrection of Christ (memorialized by the fellowshipping of God’s people on the first day of the week)?

Back to Menu                   Top of Page                   Anonymous

Answer:

Yes, creation is the most important ability of God for us to realize and remember, not only in the creation of the world, but in the regeneration of an individual. Paul wrote, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17) “And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” (Ephesians 4:24) God’s creative ability, displayed in nature, is our assurance that He is able to create in us a clean heart and complete the work He began in us. “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:6)

Paul wrote, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20) God’s eternal power is understood by the things which He has made. The Sabbath was made for man as a time when he could behold the mighty works of God and reflect upon His creative ability. As you look in awe at the vast expanse of a star-filled sky, it instills in your mind the great power that was required to create and maintain this universe. This reminds you that the same power that created these things is working inside you to renew your mind and transform your life. The Sabbath is designed to be a blessing to man, that he can come away to face a new week with renewed strength and vigor to fight the battles ahead. Whether it is the blooming of a flower, the strength of an ocean wave, the rising of the sun, or the forward step in Christian sanctification, it is the same power manifested throughout. It is through faith in this power that we become changed, and therefore it is altogether imperative that we understand God’s power displayed in creation. Notice the reason God gave for giving us the Sabbath in the first place. God said, “Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.” (Ezekiel 20:12) The Sabbath is specifically designed to keep before our minds God’s creative power; to remind us who it is that is working on our behalf to sanctify us.

Even with all this, we do not keep the seventh-day Sabbath only because it reminds us of God’s creation, but because God blessed that day, made it holy, and commanded us to keep it holy by ceasing from work on that day. This is biblical.

The idea that “the fellowshipping of the saints on the first day of each week” memorializes the resurrection of Christ is not biblical in any sense of the word. By what authority can any Christian make this claim? It certainly cannot be based upon the Bible. Tradition could be the only answer; and late-blooming tradition at that, being borrowed from the pagan sun worshippers many years after the death of Christ.

We were given two institutions to remind us of the death and resurrection of Christ, baptism and the Lord’s supper. Jesus said, “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:24, 25) This communion service can be done on any day of the week. Paul wrote, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3, 4) There is no record anywhere in the Bible that we were instructed to fellowship “on the first day of each week” to remember Christ’s death or His resurrection.

This point and its answer were printed in the March 2002 issue of Present Truth.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page

Point 11: The Sabbath rest versus Sunday meetings

The Christian observes the first day of the week in a different way than the Jews kept the Sabbath in the Old Testament. The first day of the week, called, “The Lord’s Day,” is a day when saints fellowship together in obedience to the instruction of the writer of Hebrews, where he said: “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering;… not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another.” (Hebrews 10:23, 25). The Sabbath is a state of daily Christian walk; The Lord’s day is the day when saints fellowship together on the first day of the week.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page                   Anonymous

Answer:

Do you really suppose that the writer of Hebrews had the thought in his mind that Christians should fellowship together on the first day of the week when he wrote Hebrews 10:23, 25? I submit to you that he had no such thought whatsoever, for Sunday keeping had not arisen in the Christian church until many years later.

Is there any proof whatsoever in the Bible that “the Lord’s day” is the first day of the week? The term “the Lord’s day” is only used once in the Bible, in Revelation 1:10. John wrote, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet.” (Revelation 1:10) There is no indication in the Bible that this term was applied to the first day of the week. In fact the term “first day of the week” is used 8 times in the Bible, 6 of which are used in the gospels for the day of Christ’s resurrection. The remaining 2 times it is used do not indicate that it is the Lord’s day. In fact the only day of the week that could possibly be referred to as “the Lord’s day,” is “the seventh day,” which “is the sabbath of the LORD thy God.” (Exodus 20:10) Jesus also said, “the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.” (Matthew 12:8) The seventh-day Sabbath is “the Lord’s day” according to the Scriptures.

I hope this helps to clarify the issue of the law and the Sabbath in the New Testament.

This point and its answer were printed in the March 2002 issue of Present Truth.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page

Question: Which laws in the Bible were a shadow?

“I am still searching for a better understanding of which laws in the Bible were a shadow of Christ and which are still a blessing for us to keep today. James White’s letter seems to say only the Ten Commands stand today, but I see many great blessings in keeping some of the laws that Moses wrote, like tithing, not eating unclean animals, principles of how to keep your body and home clean and free from germs and diseases, how to deal with other people in certain circumstances, etc. Please help me understand such things better.”

Back to Menu                   Top of Page                   Tennessee

Answer:

There certainly are principles in the Old Testament that are a blessing to observe today. Let us clarify some of the things you mentioned here.

First of all you mentioned tithing and linked it with the law of Moses. It is true that Moses wrote about tithing but it did not originate with him. Tithing was in effect long before Moses was born.

In Genesis we read about Abraham who gave tithes to Melchizedek. “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. (Genesis 14:18-20)

Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, also followed this practice. Jacob said, “And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the [tithe] unto thee.” (Genesis 28:22)

Jesus also instructed us to continue tithing when He said, “Ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and (Matthew 23:23)

So it is clear that tithing was not a part of the Mosaic law, but an institution that preceded Moses by many years.

You also mentioned not eating unclean meats. Here again we are dealing with an institution that was in effect long before Moses was born, and therefore could not be part of what the Bible calls “the law of Moses.”

When God sent a flood upon the earth He commanded Noah to bring more clean animals into the ark than unclean animals. “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.” (Genesis 7:2)

After the flood Noah offered only clean animals as a sacrifice to God. “And Noah builded an altar unto the L (Genesis 8:20) God never permitted men to offer unclean animals as a sacrifice to Him.

“He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog’s neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine’s blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.” (Isaiah 66:3)

God speaks of swine as being an abomination to Him. “The swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.” (Deuteronomy 14:8)

We also learn that at the time of the Lord’s coming this prohibition against swine is still in effect. “They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the L (Isaiah 66:17)

Both tithing and unclean meats were instituted long before “the law of Moses” existed. Therefore they cannot be lumped together with that which has been done away.

There are principles in the law of Moses regarding the way we should deal with our fellow man, and keep ourselves clean, that are still good, and many things that are still in effect. For example, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.” (Leviticus 18:22, 23)

These were not just temporary prohibitions, but principles to be followed today. There are many examples like this in the books of Moses. It is obvious that those relating to the sanctuary and its service are not binding for us today.

I am certain that some of these things are still binding, and that others are not. Yet determining which is which is a little difficult. I understand that tithing and unclean meats are still in effect since they are not part of “the law of Moses.” It is also clear from the Bible that the Ten Commandments are still in effect. Of these things we can be certain.

This question and its answer were printed in the January 2001 issue of Present Truth.

Back to Menu                   Top of Page

If you have a question you would like answered in our newsletter and posted on this page, please Click Here. We do not answer every question that is sent, but we try to answer most of them.

You are Visitor Number:

Since April 2002

Home    E-mail    Contact Us