The Contract at Horeb

By Roswell Oatman

Updated March 1, 2001

Contents

Introduction

I was raised with a Seventh-day Adventist background in which an unhealthy focus on the fourth commandment and various other behavior issues is promoted. After several years of seeking and agnosticism in my late teens through my mid-twenties I made the return journey to Christianity. I had some interesting spiritual experiences and began studying the Bible for myself rather than just accepting the teachings of church leaders as I had done all my life. After studying many of the various unique doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist church and concluding that many of them were unscriptural I began studying the most famous of Seventh-day Adventist doctrines - The Sabbath. As I began studying the Sabbath it became clear that the more fundamental issue involved in the whole question was the applicability of the Ten Commandments to Christians of today.

Initially this paper started as an attempt at a refutation of a paper by a good friend of mine. At this point my friend and I have agreed to disagree on various issues. However, this paper has grown into something more than simply a refutation of another work and is now essentially a compendium of the reasons and arguments that have convinced me that both the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments are not binding upon Christians of today. This paper is not intended to be a comprehensive treatment of the issues addressed. At the most it is a good starting point for beginning a study of the issues involved.

I have written this paper in such a way that those who are not familiar with Seventh-day Adventist teachings and idioms will be able to understand what is going on. For those of you who are Seventh-day Adventists you will notice that I disagree with several other fundamental Seventh-day Adventist doctrines. These include the inspiration of Ellen G. White, the investigative judgement, and remnant theology. However, this paper is not intended as a comprehensive discussion of unscriptural Seventh-day Adventist doctrines. At the most I hope to encourage readers to begin an investigation of their own into the teachings of any church they are a part of. In my mind it is very unwise to entrust one's salvation to some scholar, preacher, or man-made organization.

Unless otherwise noted, I will be using the New American Standard Bible (NASB) for all scripture references since I feel that the NASB maintains a good balance of readability and accuracy. On occasion I will use Young's Literal Translation (YLT) for a more literal rendering of a passage.

What is Horeb?

Easton's Bible Dictionary defines Horeb as:

desert or mountain of the dried-up ground, a general name for the whole mountain range of which Sinai was one of the summits (Exodus 3:1; 17:6; 33:6; Psalms 106:19, etc.). The modern name of the whole range is Jebel Musa. It is a huge mountain block, about 2 miles long by about 1 in breadth, with a very spacious plain at its north-east end, called the Er Rahah, in which the Israelites encamped for nearly a whole year.

The contract at Horeb is described in detail in two places in the Bible - Deuteronomy 5 and Exodus 20. In Exodus the contract is described as being located at Sinai, which we see is a mountain in the range of Horeb. In Deuteronomy the contract is described as being at Horeb. I chose to title this paper "The Contract at Horeb" because in general most Christians focus on the Exodus account and are either unaware of or neglectful of the Deuteronomy account. Perhaps it is neglected because in Deuteronomy it is made clear that this contract was made only with Israel and many Christians don't want to deal with this issue.

What was the Contract?

According to Easton's Bible Dictionary,

All biblical laws are placed in the context of God's covenant with Israel. Covenant, not law-keeping, establishes a relationship, just as signing a contract, rather than the specified Job, establishes an employment relationship.

Thus we see that a covenant - the word used by most translations - is little more than a contract. I will use these terms interchangeably throughout the rest of this paper.

Many advocates of modern Ten-Commandment observance insist that the Ten Commandments were not part of the contract made by God with Israel. However, the Bible makes it very clear that the Ten Commandments were indeed the essence of the contract made by God directly with the descendants of Jacob and no others.

"Then the Lord spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but you saw no form-only a voice. "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone. "And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might perform them in the land where you are going over to possess it. - Deut. 4:12-14

This is affirmed by several other passages including Exodus 34:27-28, Deuteronomy 9:9-15, and Hebrews 9:3-4. This covenant consisting primarily of the Ten Commandments was clearly made with those people (and their descendants) who were at Horeb on the day that God presented it. This refers to the nation of Israel.

Then Moses summoned all Israel, and said to them, "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully. "The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. "The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today. "The Lord spoke to you face to face at the mountain from the midst of the fire, while I was standing between the Lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the Lord; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain. He said, 'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 'You shall have no other gods before Me. - Deut. 5:1-7

It is clear that this contract defined a special and exclusive relationship between God and Israel. This contract had the purpose described in Exodus 19:3-6:

Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel: 'You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and {how} I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you to Myself. 'Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel."

God had already promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 13:14-18; 17:1-19; 48:3-4) that he would establish his contract with their descendants and here he is doing it. God declares to Israel that if they will take on the duties assigned to them in the contract and in so doing provide a priesthood unto him that he will in return claim them as his own possession among all the nations. God did not say that anyone must keep the laws spoken of in the contract, but only if they wanted to be chosen by God to receive this special gift must they keep them. It was always optional. The rewards for Jews were greater for keeping the laws, but the laws were never a salvation issue.

Some advocates of the Ten Commandments insist that the Ten Commandments and the ceremonial and societal laws must be differentiated and that the Ten Commandments were not part of the contract with Israel, but a perpetual law for all mankind. These advocates will point to the fact that the Ten Commandment tablets were stored inside the Ark of the Covenant (Deut. 5:1-5; 10:2,5) while the ceremonial and societal laws were stored outside of the Ark (Deut. 31:24-26). Clearly both Moses and God held the Ten Commandments in higher esteem than the ceremonial and societal laws. However, 1 Kings 8:21 affirms what we discovered previously by making it clear that what was stored in the ark was in actual fact the covenant. This seems to make a lot of sense considering the fact that the Ark was called the Ark "of the Covenant." Regardless of how we prioritize the portions of the law, it does not change the fact that the Ten Commandments were the essential ingredients in this contract and that the contract was made exclusively with the children of Israel. There is certainly no evidence here to show that the Ten Commandments were intended for anyone other than the children of Israel.

'Law' and 'Commandments' in the New Testament

As we have seen, advocates of the Ten Commandments often have visions of grandeur in relation to the Ten Commandments. These individuals generally declare that the Ten Commandments are some sort of immortal moral law that existed before Moses and which applies to everyone, including non-Jews. I find no Biblical support for such an artificial theological concept. These advocates often use New Testament instances of the words 'law' and 'commandments' incorrectly or inconsistently to prove their points.

Some will argue that Paul suggested that the Ten Commandments transcended the contract because he supposedly differentiated the two sets of laws in 1 Corinthians 7:19 when he stated:

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

These folks will assert that because the societal and ceremonial laws contained laws regarding circumcision, Paul must have meant that the societal and ceremonial laws were not important but that the Ten-Commandment law was. The first mistake they make is in the assumption that circumcision refers to the societal and ceremonial laws of Moses. In reality circumcision was established centuries before Moses existed when God established his covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17). On top of that, what Paul means when he refers to "the commandments of God" does not likely mean the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.

When the word 'commandments' appears in the New Testament it generally does not refer specifically to the Ten Commandments. In fact, the phrase 'Ten Commandments' does not occur in the New Testament at all. Let us examine John 14:15 as an example. In this passage Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments?" My dictionary defines 'commandment' as "an authoritative command or order." The Greek word used in John that is translated 'commandments' is entole (entole). The word entole is translated 'commandment' 69 times and 2 times as 'precept' in the KJV. My lexicon defines entole as "an order, command, charge, precept, injunction." It is we who read into this text that Jesus is speaking specifically of the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Jesus is saying that he wants us to obey whatever he tells us to do.

1 John 3:21-24 tells us explicitly what Jesus' commandments are:

Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. And the one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And we know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

In fact, there are numerous passages in the New Testament that set forth this commandment of love as Jesus' commandment (Matthew 22:37-39, Mark 12:30-31, Luke 10:27, John 13:34-35, 1 John 3:23, 4:21, 2 John 1:4-6, etc.)

In addition to this commandment of love, the writings of the apostles are spoken of multiple times as the commandments of the Lord as Paul claims in 1 Corinthians 14:36-38:

Was it from you that the word of God {first} went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize {this,} he is not recognized.

And 2 Peter 3:1-2:

This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior {spoken} by your apostles.

I don't believe that any of the apostles ever spoke of the laws of Moses in general or the Ten Commandments in particular as being something required of God. In fact I am unaware of any New Testament text clearly stating that the laws given by Moses are required of either Gentiles or post-crucifixion Jews.

The word 'law' is used quite frequently in the New Testament, but we must be very careful not to interpret references to this word as referring to any particular subset of the law. When the word 'law' appears in the New Testament, it does not generally refer specifically to just the ceremonial and societal laws or to just the Ten Commandments. For example, when John said in 1 John 3:4 (KJV), "sin is the transgression of the law," he probably meant, "sin is the condition of lawlessness." The phrase "transgression of the law" was translated from the single Greek word anomia (anomia). According to my lexicon this word means "the condition of without law" or "contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness." John was not specifically referring to the Ten Commandments. In fact, in Matthew 7:23 (and several other texts) anomia is translated as 'iniquity'. The NASB translates 1 John 3:4 as "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness."

It is interesting to note that many advocates of the Ten Commandments will insist that this passage refers to the Ten Commandments but they will likewise insist that most other references to the word 'law' in the New Testament refer only to the societal and ceremonial laws (e.g. Acts 15). It is my belief that in most cases in the New Testament, the use of the word 'law' refers to the entirety of the Torah (i.e. the five books of Moses) or minimally the entirety of the laws presented by Moses (including the Ten Commandments).

While there is no way to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt what the word 'law' means in the New Testament, it seems reasonable to conclude that it includes the entire set of laws given by Moses. The term 'Ten Commandments' is a very specific term somewhat akin to the 'bill of rights' (i.e. the first ten amendments) in the constitution of the United States. On the other hand the term 'law' is a very general term somewhat akin to the way we use the word today. If we use the word 'law' in speaking of modern laws, we do not automatically assume that it means everything but the bill of rights. It includes the bill of rights in addition to everything else. Likewise it does not make sense to use 'law' to refer to everything but the Ten Commandments. It is much more reasonable to use 'law' to refer to the Ten Commandments in addition to the ceremonial and societal laws (i.e. everything else).

One could argue that the translators of the Bible made a mistake when they translated the Greek word nomos (nomos) into 'law'. However, nowhere in scripture does there exist a statement that indicates that nomos should refer to any specific subset of the law and therefore we cannot arbitrarily select a portion of that law and assume that nomos refers to it. To the best of my knowledge there simply is no Biblical precedent for claiming that nomos refers exclusively to the ceremonial and societal laws.

Who is Israel?

There are two positions on who "spiritual Israel" is. One position known as replacement theology claims that "literal Israel" (i.e. the physical descendants of Jacob) was rejected by God and that the corresponding covenants and laws were transferred to "spiritual Israel." This group claims that "spiritual Israel" is today's Christian church (or some subgroup within the Christian church). I do not agree with this position and will here argue in favor of the alternate position that "literal Israel" was not permanently or completely rejected and that Israel's covenants and laws were not transferred to the Christian church.

The idea for replacement theology may have come from a passage such as Romans 2:28,29:

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly *, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

But Paul immediately thereafter makes it clear that there is an advantage to being a physical descendant of Jacob. In Romans 3:1-4 he clearly speaks of the physical descendants of Jacob for he uses the past tense.

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man {be found} a liar, as it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED."

In Romans 9:3-5 Paul lays out a more detailed description of the attributes of the physical descendants of Jacob.

For I could wish that I myself were accursed, {separated} from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the {temple} service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Paul declares here that it is the physical sons of Israel to whom the law and the covenant belong. Later in verse 17 and 21-24 Paul compares Israel to Pharaoh.

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." ? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another * for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And {He did so} to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, {even} us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Paul seems to imply here that God created Israel specifically for destruction. God created Israel essentially to demonstrate a point just as he did with Pharaoh. That point is clarified in verses 30-32.

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at {that} law. Why *? Because {they did} not {pursue it} by faith, but as though {it were} by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,

Romans 10:1-4 elaborates on this theme:

Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for {their} salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Israel ignorantly missed the point because God's purpose for Israel was to demonstrate the futility of the works of the law. To Israel belonged the law and the covenant but they failed in the one thing that could save them - faith in Jesus Christ. But even though Paul shows that Israel was designed for destruction he still leaves the way open for a remnant of Israel to survive in Romans 9:27.

Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED?"

In Romans 11:1-5 Paul's statements affirm that God has not completely cut Israel off. God always spares a remnant for himself.

I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? "Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE." But what is the divine response to him? "I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL." In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to {God's} gracious choice.

Some Christians claim that the following passage implies that the Christian Church replaced Israel and that the promises and contracts made with Israel were transferred to the Church.

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. - Gal. 3:26-30

It is important to observe that this passage does not claim that the Christian Church replaced Israel but rather that both Jews and Gentiles are contained within it. In Romans 11:16-21 Paul likens the Church to a vine. Jesus Christ is the root of the vine and Jews and Gentiles are branches. For the time being the Jewish branch has been broken off and the Gentile branch grafted in. However, this does not make the Gentile church into "the church." The Gentile church is merely a branch of "the church." It is dangerous to proudly declare that "we are the true church" given the fact that if God can cut off a natural branch he can just as easily cut off a branch that has been grafted in.

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, {remember that}it is not you who supports the root, but the root {supports} you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited *, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Paul provides more detail a few verses later making it very clear that Israel's calling is irrevocable and it is in fact arrogant of we Gentiles to think we have taken Israel's place.

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. - Rom. 11:25-29

It is my opinion that the story of the prodigal son found in Luke 15:11-32 is a parable of the nation of Israel. The prodigal son left his father and his home just as many of the Jews have left their God and their home. But God persistently waits for his rebellious son and will receive him with joy when he returns and repents of his evil.

For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will {their} acceptance be but life from the dead?" - Romans 11:15

Perhaps the Jews have squandered their inheritance, but their inheritance was nonetheless not given to anyone else. Like the prodigal son in the story, Israel has a brother - the Gentile church. The prodigal son's brother was bitter when God received his wayfaring son with open arms. It is my hope that we as gentile Christians will not do the same to the Jews if and when they repent and accept Jesus Christ, returning home to God's open arms.

In Exodus 32 is a story of God's anger toward Israel. God was so angry with Israel that he told Moses he was going to destroy them and make a great nation out of Moses. Moses plead strongly with the Lord in Exodus 32:11-14 and God relented from his wrath.

Then Moses entreated the LORD his God, and said, "O LORD, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? "Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil {intent} He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth '? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about {doing} harm to Your people. "Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit {it} forever.' " So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

It is for the same reasons that Moses spoke of that God still does not reject his people. God made a promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and he does not break his promises. In Deuteronomy 30:1-4 God promised Israel the following:

"So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the Lord your God has banished you, and you return to the Lord your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul according to all that I command you today, you and your sons, then the Lord your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. "If your outcasts are at the ends of the earth, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you back.

Time and time again did the Israelites rebel against God and yet every single time God delivered them from the predicaments they got themselves into. Psalm 106 gives numerous examples of God's deliverance and in verses 43-46 declares:

Many times He would deliver them; They, however, were rebellious in their counsel, And {so} sank down in their iniquity. Nevertheless He looked upon their distress When He heard their cry; And He remembered His covenant for their sake, And relented according to the greatness of His lovingkindness. He also made them {objects} of compassion In the presence of all their captors.

Does God limit his acts of forgiveness to seven? Or even seventy times seven? There is no reason in the world to think that God will not continue this trend and deliver Israel from their troubles when they cry aloud to him. And there is no reason to think that a contract made with Israel was transferred to the Gentiles. To the best of my knowledge there is not a single place in the Bible that explicitly states that the covenants and promises made with the Jewish branch of the church were either revoked or transferred to any other group of people, including the Gentile church. It also makes little sense to declare that the contract at Horeb along with its Ten-Commandment law was transferred to the Gentile church. If, as we have seen, Israel with its law was created to demonstrate the futility of such a system, then why would anyone want to perpetuate such a system?

The Contract Fulfilled

In Acts 15 we read of a dispute between those Christians who ministered to the Gentiles and those who ministered to the Jews. Those ministering to the Jews claimed that the Gentile Christians needed to observe the Law of Moses (particularly circumcision) while those ministering to the Gentiles claimed that this was unnecessary. The apostle Peter stated the following in Acts 15:7-11:

And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. "And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

The Apostle James (the brother of Jesus) decided the following in Acts 15:19-21:

"Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

These Gentiles for the most part had little previous knowledge of Judaism and in all likelihood had little knowledge of the laws of Moses, including the Ten Commandments. It is clear here that the early Apostles did not believe that the Gentiles were subject to the Ten Commandments.

The Ten Commandment advocate will argue that this passage does not refer to the Ten Commandments but to the societal and ceremonial laws because the plaintiffs referenced the circumcision and the circumcision was not part of the Ten Commandments. Once again I will observe that the circumcision predated Moses altogether and was a sign of the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17). While it was indeed discussed in the societal and ceremonial laws, its primary importance was associated with Abraham. This would lead me to guess that the law spoken of here was likely the entire Torah.

Even if one is an Israelite, the contract no longer binds. It was only binding until the seed, that is Jesus Christ, came to this earth. Galatians 3:16-19 states:

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made.

Paul makes it very clear that the law he refers to can only be the Law of the contract at Horeb because he specifically states that it was the law that came four hundred thirty years after Abraham. I do not say that the contract was done away with. Indeed, it is still in existence, but Jesus Christ fulfilled its requirements. It is a monument to us to show us that we can only be saved by the grace of God and that no man can keep the law. The mere existence of the contract does not make it binding. The author of the letter to the Hebrews describes the situation in detail in Hebrews 8:6-13:

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will effect A NEW COVENANT With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers On the day when I took them by the hand To lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they did not continue in My covenant, And I did not care for them, says the Lord. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them UPON THEIR HEARTS. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people. "And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, And everyone his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For ALL SHALL KNOW Me, From the least to the greatest of them. "For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And I will remember their sins no more." When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Israel has fulfilled the old contract. The old contract promised that Israel would be God's own possession on the condition that Israel would provide a priesthood (see Exodus 19:3-6). The priesthood of Israel was needed to foreshadow the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Israel has provided, with God's help, a permanent priesthood in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was brought forth out of a Jewish woman and therefore a Jew has permanently fulfilled the contract. With the contract fulfilled its laws are no longer of consequence. With it fulfilled God's promise to Israel is established. Israel is now God's own possession among all the peoples. Hebrews 9:11-15 declares:

But when Christ appeared {as} a high priest of the good things to come, {He entered} through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were {committed} under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

The law is no longer needed. The law - as part of the contract at Horeb - was instituted to demonstrate sin. Now that Christ has come God's righteousness has been demonstrated through his life. The law is no longer necessary because we have a positive model to follow that is far superior to the negative model represented by the law. Romans 3:19-23 explains this:

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no * flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law {comes} the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the Law {the} righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Galatians 3:24-26 makes it even clearer that the law was only in existence to lead us to Christ. Now that Christ has come we don't need this teacher anymore:

Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

We are now ministers of the new covenant - not the Ten Commandments written on stone, but the covenant of Christ. The written contract has faded away and Jesus Christ - in us - takes the place of that contract. Those who wish to learn God's ways need not study the law but observe Jesus Christ's righteousness through his servants on earth. 2 Corinthians 3:1-11 states:

Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as {coming} from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate {as} servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading {as} it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses {it.} For if that which fades away {was} with glory, much more that which remains {is} in glory.

The Law and Judgement

If the wicked will be judged, then is there not some law that they are judged against? Returning to 1 John 3:4 we find it claiming that "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness," so it seems that sin would not exist to be judged without having a law. How can judgment exist if the law was done away with? Suppose for a moment with me that the Jews will be judged according to Moses' laws. Then what law will the Gentiles be judged against?

Some would argue that the most likely candidate for the law of the Gentiles is the Ten Commandments. It is not clear from scripture that the Ten were applicable to the Gentiles but there must be some law for them and so perhaps it is the Ten. There are several passages that make it plain that gentiles had an open invitation to become Jewish and respect the laws of Moses. Isaiah 56:6-7 blesses those gentiles who "join themselves to the Lord" and respect his covenant including the Sabbath. The entire book of Ruth tells the story of a woman who became Jewish and abided by this covenant and was blessed. But the fact remains that those who did not join Israel and those who existed before Israel could not have been under the laws of Moses, even the Ten Commandments.

Others claim that Gentiles are subject to the laws expressed in God's covenant with Noah in Genesis 9:1-17. The Jewish Talmud extends the commands mentioned in Genesis 9:1-17 to seven laws, which they term "the Seven Commandments" of the "Noahide covenant." This so-called Noahide covenant is what the Jews claim Gentiles are subject to and they term any gentile who diligently follows these Seven Commandments a "righteous gentile." Whatever one may argue, there is no solid Biblical support for any of these alternatives.

Now a real dilemma arises when we compare the above candidates with the statement found in Romans 5:12-14. Here it is made clear that even before Moses and Noah existed, there existed sin. Sin is simply not imputed when there is no law in existence. Adam sinned by violating a commandment of God (not to eat the fruit), but those who came afterward sinned even though they had no commandments to violate.

Therefore *, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because * all sinned-for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Romans 2:12-16 solves the dilemma by showing that even without an official law people are a law unto themselves.

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for {it is} not the hearers of the Law {who} are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

We have mentioned three different laws now - the laws of Moses, the laws of Noah, and the laws within us known also as conscience. When 1 John 3:4 says that sin is lawlessness what can it mean but that sin is the inability of man to keep any law? Sin is not the transgression of any one particular set of laws, but the simple fact that no matter what law is set over us, regardless of who establishes that law, we simply cannot obey it. The law was established to demonstrate sin to us by showing us our inability to keep a law.

It is clear that we need no official law in order to be judged. Thank goodness that Jesus Christ came in order to save man from this judgment. John 5:24 tells us that simply by knowing Jesus Christ we are spared judgment. It truly is more important who you know than what you do.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Yes, Jesus came to save even the gentiles who were not under the contract at Horeb. Paul says in Galatians 3:13-14:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on A TREE"-in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

We receive this waiver of judgment only by faith in Jesus Christ. According to Romans 4:13-16:

For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. For this reason {it is} by faith, in order that {it may be} in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

God's Morality

Some individuals will argue that because Malachi 3:6 states that God does not change then his value system cannot change. Based on the assumption that God revealed his system of values in the laws of Moses these individuals will conclude that the laws of Moses are still in effect.

I feel that the use of this text in this way is somewhat dangerous. Indeed God does not change, but what does that really mean? If we return to the story of Moses and God in Exodus 32:11-14 we see that Moses begged God to change his mind about what he was going to do to Israel and God did indeed change his mind. One might argue that God didn't really change his mind but that he was playing a part to demonstrate a point. But that still lends credence to the notion that God does indeed change his policies toward humans on occasion.

If God had a plan that existed before the world began and it included this very shift in policy toward man then God did not change - he just appeared to change. He was simply carrying out his prearranged plan. Saying that God cannot change his policies toward man in my opinion puts too many limits on God.

The next question that arises is what was God actually revealing at Sinai? Was he revealing his own value system? In my opinion the Mosaic law (including the Ten Commandments) simply has too many arbitrary elements (e.g. the Sabbath) to be a moral law. God uses arbitrary commands like this all the time. In the Garden of Eden he commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of a particular tree. That law is no longer in effect (perhaps because the tree is gone). Perhaps these arbitrary commands are implemented to demonstrate that obedience to God is very important (keeping in mind that it is repentance - not obedience - which allows God to save us.) Just as a parent might make different rules for different kids to account for behavior differences, God can make different rules for different people or nations at different stages of development or to demonstrate certain points.

But by saying that the Ten Commandments are not applicable to us, I am not advocating killing, stealing, or adultery. I am saying that we are held to a different law - the law of Christ. If I have Christ within me I will not kill or steal or many other things that happen to be specified in the Ten Commandments. Likewise, simply because many of the things I do by following Christ's internal guidance coincide with many of the things which are enumerated in the Ten Commandments does not mean that I am subject to or obeying the Ten Commandments.

If interest rates were to drop today and I were to refinance my house I would go to a bank and apply for a new mortgage. A mortgage is really little more than a contract between a person and a lender. Assuming the lender approved my new mortgage, the lender would then proceed to pay off the debt I owed under the previous mortgage. Now the previous mortgage had many rules that went along with it, just as did Israel's contract with God. However, when my lender pays off my debt, the terms of the contract are fulfilled and I am no longer subject to the rules of that contract. The record of that contract still exists, but it no longer holds any power over me.

So it is with the Ten Commandments and the law of Christ within us. We are no longer beholden to the old mortgage, we have moved on to something much better. Jesus Christ has paid the debt we owed. The terms of the new contract only require us to open our hearts to him and allow him to enter. He takes care of the rest. We are not bound either legally or morally to obey the Ten Commandments. Christ paid the price so that we could be free.

The Sabbath

The Reason for the Sabbath

Most Sabbatarians will cite the Exodus account of the Ten Commandments and point to Exodus 20:11 to give the reason for the existence of the Sabbath.

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore * the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

They will then point to the first chapter of Genesis and declare that God instituted the Sabbath at the time of creation. I challenge these individuals to find a single passage of scripture prior to the giving of the Ten Commandments that commands anyone to keep the Sabbath or even describes anyone doing such a thing. Simply because God blessed a particular day does not mean he instituted a law regarding its observance.

In Deuteronomy 5 we have an alternate copy of the Ten Commandments. Oddly enough the two copies are not exactly the same. In Deuteronomy 5:12-15 is an alternate rendering of the Sabbath commandment in which a different reason for the existence of the Sabbath is given. Verse 15 states:

'You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore * the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.

If the reason given in Deuteronomy is true, then it would imply that the Sabbath had not actually been commanded or observed until the time of Moses. This does not conflict with the reason given in Exodus. God was now beginning to fulfill his promises to Abraham in making Abraham's descendants into a great nation. It was only fitting that these special people of God honor God's glorious act of creation in a special way.

The Sabbath is a Shadow

Paul says in Colossians 2:16-17:

Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

How can anything be clearer than this? And yet many Sabbath advocates will argue that this does not refer to the weekly Sabbaths, but only the Sabbaths based upon the lunar and yearly calendar. These Sabbatarians claim that the weekly Sabbath and the non-weekly Sabbaths should be separated because they are so different in nature. After all, the weekly Sabbath was the only Sabbath that was a part of the Ten Commandments, which as we have seen both God and Moses considered to be more important.

The problem with this is that the author of the books of Leviticus and Numbers (presumably Moses) considered both the weekly Sabbaths and the non-weekly Sabbaths to be similar enough in nature to lump them all together as "appointed times of the Lord" in the 23^rd chapter of Leviticus. This chapter describes in detail each of the "appointed times of the Lord" and includes the weekly Sabbath along with all the rest. In Numbers 28 and 29, all the sacrifices to be made on the various Sabbaths are described in detail. Once again the weekly Sabbath is lumped together with the non-weekly Sabbaths. It is doubtful that Paul disagreed with Moses on this issue.

Looking deeper we find that the word translated "Sabbath day" is the Greek word sabbaton (sabbaton). My lexicon defines sabbaton in two ways. The first is "the seventh day of each week." The second is "seven days, or a week." We find many texts that use sabbaton in a manner consistent with the first definition. Some examples are Matthew 12:5,10,12, Mark 3:4, Luke 4:31, 6:2, 6:9, Acts 17:2, etc. We also find some texts that are consistent with the second definition, such as 1 Corinthians 16:2, John 20:1 and several others. By comparing the lexicon entry and the word's usage in scripture it becomes apparent that the word sabbaton is somehow related to the number seven.

The Greek word sabbaton has its roots in the Hebrew word tbbX. The Hebrew word tbbX (shabbath) is the word used in Exodus 20:8-11 to declare the Sabbath as part of the Ten Commandments. My lexicon defines tbbX as "sabbath, day of atonement, sabbath year, week, produce (in sabbath year)." The only definition here that might lead us to question the relation of sabbaton to the number seven is the Day of Atonement. If we read Leviticus 23:26-32 we discover that the Day of Atonement was held on the 10^th day of the 7^th month. Once again we find a relationship with the number seven.

It is clear from both the lexicon and from their usage in scripture that the words sabbaton and tbbX are used heavily to refer to the weekly Sabbaths as well as the Day of Atonement and the year-based Sabbaths. Its usage in the New Testament consistently refers to time periods relating to a week.

Going even further, some Sabbatarians will argue that sabbaton in this context cannot refer to the weekly Sabbaths because the passage describes it as "things which are a mere shadow of what is to come." Since the weekly Sabbath is a memorial to creation, which is already passed, it cannot be a shadow of something in the future. This is an excellent example of basing the interpretation of a passage not on clear reading of the passage, but upon preconceived theological notions.

One possible item that the Sabbath could be a shadow of is rest. Hebrews 4:4-9 describes the essence of the Sabbath as rest:

For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh {day:} "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS "; and again in this {passage,} "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST." Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS." For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

Matthew 11:28-30 makes it clear that Jesus Christ is the person who gives us rest.

"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

It seems plausible that the Sabbath is merely a "shadow" of our rest in Christ Jesus. And as God rested on the seventh day, we too can now rest in Christ from the works of the law. The Sabbath was a symbol that pointed ahead to the time when the law would no longer carry any power.

Does the Sabbath Transcend the Contract?

The Sabbath is a memorial to God's creation and a day that he blessed. However, to the best of my knowledge there does not exist in the Bible a mandate regarding observance of the Sabbath prior to the contract made with Israel at Horeb. Many Sabbatarians argue that since God's blessing of the Sabbath antedates the Ten Commandments, it must therefore transcend the contract made with Israel at Horeb. However, these same individuals will also argue that animal sacrifice was done away with regardless of the fact that it also antedated (see Genesis 4:3-5; 8:20; 22:2-13; 31:54) the contract with Israel made at Horeb. I vote for consistency.

Some Sabbatarians argue that the Sabbath transcends the contract because in Matthew 12:8 (and Mark 2:28) Jesus said, "So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." The claim is made that even if the rest of the Ten Commandments are of none affect, Jesus still requires Sabbath observance. When one looks at the larger context of the passage such a conclusion is not tenable. Matthew 12:1-8 (and Mark 2:23-28) tells the story:

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads {of grain} and eat. But when the Pharisees saw {this,} they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath." But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions *, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? "Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? "But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. "But if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the innocent. "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

Apparently what happened here is that some Pharisees confronted Jesus and accused him of allowing his disciples to break the Sabbath. In this situation there is no doubt that the Pharisees were correct in saying that Jesus and his disciples were breaking the Sabbath law given the fact that in Exodus 16:23-30 the Jews were restricted from gathering food and from leaving their dwellings on the Sabbath. Jesus cited two other examples of law breaking, one by a very famous and respected person (i.e. David) and then he explained that the Sabbath was really just a gift given by God to humanity (see Mark). The Pharisees placed the law and particularly the Sabbath on a high pedestal over the people and even over Jesus. Jesus is telling them that the law is not as important as he is. It is not even as important as the needs of our fellow men. Jesus has dominion over all, even the Sabbath and the law. It is Jesus who belongs on that high pedestal, not the law or the Sabbath.

Another argument can be made that the Sabbath transcends the contract at Horeb because in Exodus 31:12-18 the Sabbath is declared to be a 'perpetual' covenant to be kept throughout 'their generations'. If we examine this passage more closely we discover that the word 'perpetual' is from the Hebrew ~lw[ (`owlam) My lexicon defines ~lw[ as a "long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world." While ~lw[ can mean forever, it can also mean for a long time. In fact, Jonah described his stay in the belly of the whale with the word ~lw[ in Jonah 2:6. Young's Literal Translation translates the word ~lw[ in Exodus 31:16,17 as 'age-during' and 'to the age':

and the sons of Israel have observed the sabbath; to keep the sabbath to their generations [is] a covenant age-during, between Me and the sons of Israel it [is] a sign -- to the age; for six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, and in the seventh day He hath ceased, and is refreshed.'

Clearly there is a lack of clarity about what the word ~lw[ means. If we are conservative we will take ~lw[ to mean "for a long time."

If we examine the word generations we discover that its Hebrew origin is the word rwd (dowr). My lexicon defines rwd as a "period, generation, habitation, dwelling." Once again we cannot be absolutely clear about exactly what this word means in the Exodus passage. It is apparent, however, that it does not mean forever.

If we examine other passages of command in the Torah to compare the usage of ~lw[ and rwd we end up with the following list of things which were declared either ~lw[ (i.e. perpetual) or rwd (i.e. for their generations). If one uses these words to argue that the Sabbath transcends the law then one must also declare that each of the following items transcends the law. I think it is fairly clear that they do not.

The Dispute over the Day

Some Sabbath advocates claim that because they adhere to the principle of Sola Scriptura (i.e. scripture alone) they keep the Jewish Sabbath (i.e. from sundown Friday night to sundown Saturday night) holy instead of Sunday. These Sabbatarians make a great big deal about the fact that many other Christians do not worship on the Jewish Sabbath but on Sunday instead. These individuals jump through oodles of hoops on their journey to prove that the apostles, disciples, Jesus, and all the patriarchs observed the Jewish Sabbath and that worship on Sunday was a tradition instituted by the Catholic Church and borrowed from pagan religions for the sake of convenience. While this may in fact be partially true, in my mind the fact that the Sabbath is no longer required makes moot the question of which day it falls upon.

It is also my opinion that the driving principle - Sola Scriptura - behind this quest for the correct day is somewhat flawed. Consider the fact that the book that we now call the Bible is composed of 66 different books written by many different authors. It is by tradition that we accept the canonicity of each of these books. If we solely trust the scriptures, we must first trust tradition to tell us what is scripture.

If it were not for tradition we would have no idea which day was the Jewish Sabbath. It is the assumption that the Jews kept the Sabbath tradition perfectly since the time they were commanded to do so that leads people to worship on the Jewish Sabbath. If that assumption is incorrect then our seventh day is different than the original one simply because which seventh day one keeps is based entirely upon which day one starts counting. Because of the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative in history, it is impossible to prove that there was no break or change in the tradition of the Israelites from the time at which they were commanded to do so until now. The keeping of the Sabbath from sundown Friday night to sundown Saturday night is completely dependent upon tradition.

The common Protestant line of reasoning supporting the use of the principle of Sola Scriptura is that the Catholic Church was untrustworthy and influenced by pagan religions and thus we should not accept its traditions or teachings. This motive is weak at best. If we use this motive consistently then we would also discard the traditions of the Jewish people (e.g. the Sabbath) because of the fact that they often strayed from God's laws and were influenced by pagan religions. There are many examples of times in which the Hebrews turned to other Gods such as Chemosh or Molech (e.g. 1 Kings 11:7, Jeremiah 32:35).

Now the really funny thing here is that after pledging allegiance to Sola Scriptura, the next step in proving the validity of the Jewish Sabbath is to track down the traditions of the apostles, disciples, Jesus, or even further back. The whole endeavor ends up running around in circles. I am not aware of any mandate given in the New Testament regarding Sabbath worship and simply going on the tradition of the writers of the scripture violates the principle of Sola Scriptura. On top of that, the writers of the New Testament were in large part of Jewish descent and were probably as opposed to a change in lifestyle as people are today. It is very difficult to convince a Sunday worshiper to change to worship on the Jewish Sabbath and it would likewise be difficult to convince one who worships on the Jewish Sabbath to change to worship on Sunday.

Is the Jewish Sabbath the Seal of God?

Some Gentile advocates of the Jewish Sabbath claim that the 'remnant' church of the end times will keep the Jewish Sabbath. This is based upon Revelation 12:17:

And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Note that the King James Version of the Bible calls the "rest of her offspring" the "remnant of her seed". This is where the term 'remnant' comes from. The claim is made that this 'remnant' will keep the seventh day Sabbath because this text says that they will keep the commandments of God. The first assumption that must be made is that the 'woman' refers to the Gentile Church, which is a matter of some debate among scholars of prophesy. The second assumption that must be made is that the word 'commandments' refers specifically to the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Once again, the word 'commandments' was translated from the Greek word entole, which cannot be used to denote specifically the Ten Commandments.

In addition to being based upon faulty logic, the notion that the 'remnant' church will keep the Sabbath is often used in diametrical opposition to Paul's reprimand of the Jews in Romans 2. Paul accuses the Jews of blaspheming the name of God among the Gentiles by boasting in the law and claiming to have the embodiment of knowledge and truth. In verse 23 Paul sums up his sentiments when he says, "you who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?" It is my opinion that those who claim that they are the 'remnant' church because they keep all of the Ten-Commandments including the Sabbath are boasting in the law of God. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and have indeed broken the law. By boasting in the law and breaking the law, those who claim the Sabbath as a sign of their 'chosenness' are dishonoring God.

Some Sabbatarians believe that the Jewish Sabbath is the seal of God. Paul shows that we are not sealed by anything we do of ourselves (including keeping the Sabbath) other than making the decision to believe. Ephesians 1:14 makes it clear that it is only the Holy Spirit who can seal us.

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Ephesians 4:30 states that this sealing is for the day of redemption.

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

In Summary

The contract between God and Israel that consisted primarily of the Ten Commandments was made at Mount Sinai in the mountain range of Horeb. It was made exclusively with the nation of Israel - the descendants of Jacob - four hundred and thirty years after Abraham's covenant of faith. The contract was established to provide a priesthood to symbolically point forward to Christ's priestly ministry. The law enumerated in the contract was established to reveal man's sinful nature - which is simply man's inability to adhere to any law in existence. Christ's priestly ministry and death fulfilled the contract and eliminated the need for obedience to the law. Our guide is no longer the law, but Christ Jesus living within us. By knowing Jesus Christ we are exempt from judgment by law.

The Sabbath does not transcend the law even though God blessed it at the time of creation. The Sabbath, like the rest of the law, is not required. This makes moot the question of which twenty-four-hour period the Sabbath falls on. Regardless of whether one claims to be required to observe the Sabbath on either Sunday or Saturday one is still clinging to the law. To continue claiming adherence to the law is to diminish the accomplishment of Jesus Christ in his role as our atoning sacrifice.

Conclusion

Medicine has taken great strides in the last century - consider the case of antibiotics. Never before have doctors been able to so effectively remove bacterial pathogens from the body, and after all, are not pathogens the cause of most disease?

But how do we know that pathogens are the cause of disease? I believe that I just heard some gasps of surprise. We all "know" that pathogens are the cause of disease and questioning that doctrine is met with astonished looks of disbelief. Indeed, the symptoms of infectious disease are often the outward signs of the body's defensive reaction against an invading pathogen, but how did the pathogen gain such a strong foothold within the body in the first place?

If your clothes grow mildew you can use powerful detergents to clean them and get rid of the smell, but if you put them back in the same damp closet they will grow mildew all over again. The real problem here is not the mildew even though it was the cause of the nasty smell. The real problem is the dampness in the closet. What needs to be done is to install a dehumidifier or better ventilation. So it is with bacteria and antibiotics.

Oddly enough, modern medicine approaches many other problems with this same philosophy. If we can make the symptoms go away, then everything will be all right. You have a headache? Here, take two aspirin. You have insomnia? Here take some sleeping pills. You have clogged arteries? Don't worry about how your arteries got clogged, we'll clean `em out for you. You have cancer? Never mind how the cancer got there in the first place, you need chemotherapy to get rid of it.

But let's not stop there. We have a growing incidence of venereal disease? Let's pass out condoms. Your marriage isn't working out? You need a divorce. Kids are massacring kids in schools? Let's regulate guns. Somebody blew up a building with a homemade bomb? Let's regulate the fertilizer industry. People are breaking laws? Let's build prisons. People are sinning? Let's proclaim the judgement of the wicked.

It seems as though more than just doctors have the tendency to ignore the root problem. Every time we see a new disease, we invent a new medicine to mask the symptoms. Every time we see people with new personal problems, we establish a new program to help them deal with it. Every time we see a new societal problem, we legislate a new rule to deal with it. Medicine is getting so complex that doctors can no longer just be doctors, they have to specialize. Our legal code is so complex that we have lawyers who specialize in certain types of cases. Our legislature is continually patching holes in our ever more delicately held together legal baggage, and pretty soon all our dirty laundry is going to fall out, only to be slid silently behind an iron curtain.

Our theologians are continually patching holes in our ever more delicately held together theological baggage, and pretty soon all our dirty laundry is going to fall out and take the congregation with it.

If there is anything that the Old Testament was designed to teach us, it is that human beings cannot follow long lists of rules, regulations, and guidelines. The Old Testament devotes entire books to nothing but rules and regulations but the people who were given these laws were never able to keep them. They were continually getting into trouble and crawling back to God for forgiveness. Just like aspirin, laws don't fix problems they mask symptoms. We have missed the boat on this one entirely, laws really weren't meant for anything more than to teach us that there is a much more serious problem hidden deeper.

It is this very concept that Paul is talking about in Galatians 3:24-25 (NASB):

Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

The law Paul speaks of was not created to solve any problems. It was created to point us to the true solution, which is Jesus Christ. John 5:39-40 affirms this:

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling * to come to Me so that you may have life?

It is Jesus Christ within us who will convict each individual of what he must do even though one individual may be convicted differently than another. Romans 14:4-6 states:

Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person regards one day above another, another * regards every day {alike.} Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

In Colossians 1:25-27 Paul clearly expresses what our duties are as ministers of the new and living covenant. We are here to spread the good news that we can have Christ living within us.

Of {this church} I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the {preaching of} the word of God, {that is,} the mystery which has been hidden from the {past} ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

It is Jesus Christ within who heals our inmost disease - no laws can do this. As ministers of the new covenant we are not here to pass out aspirin; we are here to direct people to a real healer. We are not here to point out the symptoms; we are here to point out the cure. We are not here to provide condemnation; we are here to reveal salvation. We are not here to provide guidelines for behavior; we are here to point to the Savior. We are not here to lead people to our church; we are here to lead people to Jesus Christ.

Sources Consulted

I initially attempted to develop my thinking on this issue exclusively from the Bible. After I had established what I felt to be a solid position I examined other materials including the following which have had some impact on the content of this paper, though discussion and comment from friends has had a larger impact.

1. Akin, James, "Paul and the Law," 1996.

2. Bartlett, Gary, "Scriptural and Rational Proofs for Seventh-day Sabbath Worship."

3. Dauns, Frank, "Israel Before Christ."

4. Dauns, Frank, "The New Covenant."

5. Fredericks, Richard, Miscellaneous discussion on the Sabbath.

6. Reisinger, John G., "Tablets of Stone," 1997.

7. Russell, John, "Why I Believe in a Pre-Wrath Rapture."

8. www.biblestudytools.net.