Sabbath-Day Observance (The Covenants) (Part 5)

In this final look at what a female correspondent had to say concerning the Law of Moses, she writes: “You seem to be confusing the law with the covenant.” So, let’s take a look at the word covenant. The word is found 292 times in the King James Bible. In the plural, it appears three times.

God first made a covenant with Noah and his family (Gen. 6:18). He also made one with all of Noah’s descendants—that the rainbow signifies—that He would never again destroy the earth with a Flood (Gen. 9:9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17). God made a covenant with Abraham regarding the land promise (Gen. 15:8), as well as one usually called the nation promise, of which circumcision was a sign (Gen. 17).

What Does a Covenant Include?

Exodus 24:7 relates that Moses took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. What did this book contain, if not the laws that Moses had just give them? The people responded by saying, “All that the Lord has said we will do, and be obedient.” The point is that God’s laws cannot be separated from His covenant with Israel. The Sabbath itself is said to be a perpetual covenant (Ex. 31:16), which means the laws regarding it were meant to be kept.

No doubt can possibly exist that the Ten Commandments are part of the covenant God gave to Israel: “So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments” (Ex. 34:28). This one verse is sufficient, but information on this subject abounds.

Deuteronomy 4:23 states that Israel was not to forget the covenant of the Lord, which included making a carved image in the form of anything which God had forbidden them. Doesn’t that sound like the second commandment? Yes, the Ten Commandments are in the covenant that God made with Israel. The covenant and the commandments can be used interchangeably.

Moses is about to repeat the Ten Commandments for the new generation. He introduces the topic with these words:

The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord did not make the covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of who are alive. The Lord talked with you face to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire (Ex. 5:2-4, emph. GWS).

Then Moses enumerates the Ten Commandments. Moses even speaks about “the tables of the covenant” (Deut. 9:9, 11). And in case that language is too vague, Moses also calls them “the two tablets of the covenant,” which were in his “two hands” (Deut. 9:15). When Moses, therefore, speaks of keeping “the words of this covenant” in order to prosper in all that they do, he is referring to keeping the Law.

These references could be multiplied several times over, but the point is that Moses contrasts the two covenants in Hebrews 8:6-7. The first covenant has been replaced by a second. The first was the Law of Moses; the second is the New Testament of Christ. It is not for nothing that the Bible is divided into two parts—the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old was passing away in the days of Jeremiah, and the New took effect after Jesus died on the cross because “a testament is in force after men are dead” (Heb. 9:16-17).

That first covenant has been replaced. Yes, some of the moral principles taught therein are also part of the new covenant. But that first covenant is no longer in effect. It, with all its ordinances, was nailed to the cross. It died. No one can be married to Christ and be married to the Law at the same time. Paul makes this point in Romans 7. Christians are dead to the law through the body of Christ (Rom. 7:4). Paul writes that “we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by” (Rom. 7:6).

The point is that if a person is married to the Law and married to Christ, also, he is a bigamist. This is what the Sabbatarian fails to comprehend. One cannot say that the New Testament just adds a little more spirituality to the old and that we can do both. No. The Old is dead, and we must let it go completely in order to embrace the New. One cannot be part of two different covenants.

The Dietary Laws

One way to see the conflict between the two covenants would be to observe God’s commandments under both covenants regarding dietary restrictions. Under the Law there were animals that could be eaten, but some were forbidden. Leviticus 11 distinguishes between clean and unclean animals. Israel was authorized to eat some of them, and others were clearly forbidden. Does the New Testament contain those same laws? No.

The writer mentions that in Acts 10:14, Peter was still observing the dietary laws. This is not the best passage for her to bring up. She is correct in saying that Peter was still observing the dietary laws God gave to the Jews. He was Jewish, and the Jews did not learn everything concerning the new covenant at one time. But it is in this precise passage that Peter learns that those dietary laws no longer apply. They changed when the new covenant came into effect. Consider what Acts 10 teaches.

Even though the gospel was to be proclaimed in all the world—to every creature (Mark 16:15)—the apostles had not yet gone to the Gentiles. Peter was about to have an opportunity to speak to some, but he would naturally be reluctant to go. In fact, when he arrived, he tells them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation” (Acts 10:28a). The reader might ask, “Well, Peter, if it is unlawful, why did you go there?”

He explains in the second half of the verse: “But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” “I’m curious,” we might say to the Peter, “How did God reveal this message to you?” We have only to back up to Acts 10:10-13 to see that God brought down from heaven various animals for him to eat (since he was hungry). God commanded him, “Rise, Peter, kill and eat.” But he refused? He was hungry; why did he reject the food God provided?

He answered, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean” (v. 14). He did not yet know about the changes in the dietary laws; so, he refused to violate the Jewish laws he had grown up with. But God informed him: “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” The application of the change in dietary laws was that it was acceptable for Peter to preach to the Gentiles.

However, not only must the application be true, what it is based on must also be true. God had authorized the eating of all animals—even those declared unclean previously. Under the first covenant, certain meats (such as bacon, sausage, and ham) had been forbidden. Now God authorizes them. So, those who desire to be under both covenants, what happens now? Are those meats authorized or forbidden?

It won’t do to say one can do either. We are talking about Divine law. Which one is binding today? The one that forbids pork or the one that authorizes pork? Some say they are healthier and feel better under the Mosaic diet, but then others say the Genesis 1:29 diet is even better, which excludes all animals. These folks would also claim that they are only eating things that God knows is good for them. Your congenial editor is grateful for the Acts 10 diet—especially since it includes coconut shrimp.

If the dietary restrictions under the Law of Moses are binding, what about circumcision? God demanded it in the Old Testament—first with Abraham and then with Moses. Christianity does not demand it, which the conference in Jerusalem proves. No Gentiles were required to circumcise their children, observe the Leviticus 11 diet, or keep the Sabbath day. All of these are missing from Acts 15:29.

The correspondent points out that truth existed under every covenant, which is true. But as has already been demonstrated, certain commands were given under one system that are not included in another. Was Leviticus 11 true for Israelites. Yes? Is it binding today? No. God specifically authorized all animals to be eaten. The Sabbath was a sign between God and the nation of Israel. However, we are not Israelites, and it is not our sign. Circumcision was demanded prior to and under the Law of Moses, but the New Testament makes no such demand of us.

Matthew 5:17-19 Again

The sister in question cites this passage once again and claims that “we are warned not to break the least of these commandments (nor to teach others to). If we do, we shall be least in the kingdom.” The primary rules of interpretation involve asking, “Who is speaking?” and “To whom is he speaking?” Jesus is not talking to us (who live under the new covenant) in this passage; He is speaking to Jews who lived under the Law of Moses but were also hearing principles of the New Covenant being taught. Just because insights into the New were being given did not mean that the Old could therefore be disobeyed. Those disregarding the Law of Moses would be least in the new kingdom of Christ.

However, once that new kingdom was established and the gospel proclaimed publicly for the first time (on Pentecost), then the Old Covenant had been nailed to the cross, and Christians did not need to obey those old laws. We know this is the case because the apostles and elders did teach people that they did not need to keep the Law of Moses or any longer circumcise their children.

How do we know that? Some were teaching: “Unless you are circumcised according to the Law of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). What did the apostles and elders decide concerning that? They did not require the Gentiles to do it (v. 29). These same men were commanding Christians “to keep the Law of Moses” (v. 5). That would definitely include the Sabbath day. How did the apostles respond? They did not require the honoring of the Sabbath day, either (v. 29).

So, are the apostles the least in the kingdom of heaven? They had the perfect opportunity to teach that these things that were part of the law absolutely had to be taught and observed. They did not, however, do so. They omitted demanding the keeping of the Sabbath and the longstanding practice of circumcision, which are two of the most prominent features of the Law of Moses. How could they do that—unless God no longer required these things of Christians?

Conclusion

In this series of articles, the points have been argued vigorously—not to be unkind—but so that the truth might be seen clearly. Also, the Sabbath day position, as espoused by many, is a serious mistake to make. The Book of Galatians was written to combat the Judaizing teachers (and those they influenced), like those depicted in Acts 15. Insisting on following the Old Testament was a false gospel, and those seeking to be justified by the Law had fallen from grace (Gal. 5:1-4).