We got an advertisement email from David Cerello, (Inspiration Network) the other day, the 1st part of which I copy and pasted, immediately following this paragraph. For a guy who owns his own Christian TV station, he sure doesn’t seem to know the bible, or is it just a means to get a “first fruit” offering from his followers? He mentions that Jesus, his disciples, Paul and the early church celebrated them. I beg to differ, see Point 4 and Point 9 below.
Dear David,
God makes it clear His Appointed Times — the Feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles — are to be celebrated throughout all generations (Leviticus 23:14, 41)! Jesus, His disciples, Paul, and the early Church celebrated them. God expects all of His people — not just Old Testament Jews — to celebrate these Feasts forever!
I believe the widespread ignorance about God's feasts is the devil's strategy to keep you, His child, from experiencing the Lord's blessings! You and I have an appointment with the Lord in just a few weeks when the Feast of Pentecost begins on June 8. God will be ready and waiting to keep His appointment with you. The question is ... Will YOU?
The following information is taken from the book “God’s Plan for Man” by Finis Dake. Even though I didn’t write it, I felt compelled to copy and paste this part of his book as a follow-up to yesterday’s blog that we wrote on “THE LAW”. Dake gives all the biblical proof that anyone who honestly studies the bible can give to prove that the Old Covenent was entirely done away with, including all the feasts and sabbaths.
THE OLD AND NEW COVENANTS
I. Biblical Proof That the Old Covenant Was Entirely Abolished
1. The whole law of God and Moses, including the Ten Commandments, and all the civil and ceremonial laws based upon the Ten Commandments, were done away with and abolished in Christ on the cross and the New Covenant now takes the place of the old one. This is plainly stated in 2 Cor. 3: “Who hath made us able ministers of the new testament . . . if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones (the Ten Commandments); was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance which was to be done away. For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that (the Old Covenant) which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that (the Old Covenant) which is done away was glorious, much more that (the New Covenant) which remaineth is glorious . . . not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that (the Old Covenant) which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which is done away in Christ” (2 Cor. 3:6-15; Col. 2:14-17; Eph. 2:15). The word “vail” in this verse 14 is not in the original Greek, so it is not only the vail that is “done away,” but it is the Old Covenant itself which is done away in Christ on the cross. Some people may need an interpreter to explain this simple passage, but to the common reader it is clear that the Old Covenant has been “done away” and “abolished” entirely and the New Covenant has taken its place. The Ten Commandments were the only part of the law that were written and engraven on tables of stone, so they were done away with on the cross (Exod. 24:12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1-4, 27-35; Deut. 4:13; 5:22; 10:4). Some people argue that it was only the glory of the Old Covenant that was done away, but what good is an Old Covenant that has lost its glory? Why contend that we should keep it when we have a better and a New Covenant that is more glorious and which remains in force? Paul argues that the Old Covenant was given in glory, so if its glory is done away the covenant itself is also done away. Leaving out the second “glory” in verse 7 and the second “vail” in verse 14, which are not in the original Greek, we have the fact plainly stated in both verses that it is “the old testament; which is done away in Christ.” In verse 15 the Old Covenant is called “Moses,” thus proving that Moses gave the Ten Commandments. Note the following contrasts between the Old and New Covenants is 2 Cor. 3: the first is “old” and the second is “new”; the first brought “death” and the second brings “life”; the first was “glorious” and the second is “much more glorious”; the first brought “condemnation” and the second brings “righteousness,” which frees from condemnation (Rom. 8:1-4); the first was of “the letter” and the second is of “the Spirit”; the first had “no glory” in comparison to the second “by reason of the glory that excelleth”; the first was “done away” and “abolished” and the second “remaineth”; the first came by “Moses” and was “done away in Christ”; the first required a vail to hide the glory because it was “the ministration of death,” but the exceeding glory of the second can be looked upon with “open face” because it is “the spirit that giveth life”; and the first brought blindness and bondage, while the second brings enlightenment and liberty and changes character by the Spirit of the Lord. A mere change in administration of the Old Covenant, the failure of either party in keeping it, or the place where it is written does not change the covenant from an old to a new one, nor does such change its glory in any sense. Although some may argue and try to get around this plain Scripture which says three times that the Old Covenant was “done away” and once that it was “abolished” in Christ. Any change in the administration of a contract or the terms of a will would not change the will or contract itself. A will or a contract itself would have to be changed or a new one take the place of the old one if it would be “done away” and “abolished,” as is here stated of the Old Covenant.
Why any cult, if its devotees had the slightest degree of honesty and faith that the Bible is the Word of God, would change the Word of God to fit some human theory is more than one can imagine. It would be much easier to accept the plain Word of God, and if human theories do not harmonize with them to throw such theories away and stick by God and His Word on all questions.
2. Christ came to “fulfill” the law before He “abolished” it on the cross (Mt. 5:17-18). The Greek word for “fulfill” is plero, “to satisfy,” “execute,” “finish,” “end,” “make complete,” and “cause to expire.” It is translated “fulfilled” in connection with many prophecies which came to an end when they were fulfilled (Mt. 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 26:54-56; 27:9, 35). That the law also ceased to be in force when it was “fulfilled” is clear from Mt. 11:13; Lk. 16:16; 24:27, 44; Gal. 3:19-25. The law was only a shadow of things to come and when these realities came the mere type, picture, or shadow of them was no longer needed (Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 4:1-11; 8:1-6; 9:1-10; 10:1-18). 3. “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:17). This not only proves that the law was not made known before Moses, but that it was replaced by the New Covenant of grace and truth when Christ came. 4. Law keeping was not required by the apostles: “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them [Gentile Christians], and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said . . . Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear . . . Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, after this [the Church Age] I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down, and I will build the ruins thereof, and I will set it up . . . 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 fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him [his law, the Old Covenant], being read in the synagogues every sabbath. Then pleased it the apostles and elders and the whole Church to send men . . . they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles . . . Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us [Jews in the early Church who have been under the law from birth] have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment . . . For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication [all fleshly lusts as in Gal. 5:19-21]; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well” (Acts 15:5-29). The apostles here did away with all keeping the law and circumcision and stated in no uncertain terms that Gentiles were not to keep the Law of Moses, which included the old Jewish sabbath. This is the Christian position in all this age. However, if this decision could have been made by some modern teachers it would have been law and sabbath-keeping as the sum total of salvation.
Included in this apostolic decree that Christians are not to keep the law in any detail, was the very sign of law-keeping which was abolished—circumcision. Even those who keep the Jewish sabbath do not practice this, thus proving again their inconsistency in requiring men to keep a law they themselves do not keep (Exod. 12:44-48; Lev. 12:3; Jn. 7:22-23). Circumcision was required as a sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham (Gen. 17:9-14). The New Covenant does not require it (Rom. 4:11; 1 Cor. 7:18; Gal. 2:3; 5:1-5). This change proves that the New Covenant is not the same as the one made with Abraham as taught by some people today. If it is the same covenant circumcision would also be required in the New Testament. 5. Concerning meats and sabbath days: “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it . . . But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ . . . So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more” (Rom. 14:1-13; Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:14-17). If the Law of Moses, including the fourth commandment, was in force in the New Covenant, the above statements would never have been written by Paul. Each Christian can do as he pleases concerning the sabbath and he is not to be judged by his brother “any more.” 6. Christian experiences do not come by the law: “Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? . . . the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them [things of the law] shall live in them . . . how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage?” (Gal. 1:6-9; 2:15-21; 3:1-12, 19-25; 4:1-3, 19-31; 5:1-9, 11-21). Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years [that the law required]. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed labour upon you in vain” (Gal. 3:1-12; 4:9-11). Going back to observe sabbaths according to the law is spoken of here as going back into the bondage of the law. If one does this “he is a debtor to do the whole law” (Gal. 5:3). 7. The law “was added because of transgressions, till the seed [Christ] should come to whom the promise was made . . . But before faith came [that Christ brought in the Gospel and the New Covenant, Heb. 12:1-2], we were kept under the law, shut up unto that faith which should afterwards be revealed . . . Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Gal. 3:19-25). Not being “under” law is here explained as being out from under its authority like one who is no longer under a schoolmaster when he graduates from school. The law is not in force and it has no claim or authority over the person under the New Covenant. He is under the obligation to keep the New Covenant laws and commandments, which include new laws that were never part of the Old Covenant, as well as those old laws that God saw fit to make a part of the New Covenant. 8. The law, including the Ten Commandments, has been “cast out”: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law. For it is written, that Abraham had two sons . . . he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar (Hagar) . . . and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all . . . Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that is born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman [the first or Old Covenant from Mount Sinai] and her son [those under the law]: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman [the old “ten commandment” covenant and its many laws], but of the free [the New Covenant]. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage [the Old Covenant] . . . For I testify again to every man that is circumcised [no man had any part in the Old Covenant unless he was circumcised], that he is a debtor to do the whole law” (Gal. 4:21-31; 5:1-5, 18). Modern law–keepers never mention this passage, for there is no possible way for them to explain such simple language as the Old Covenant “from Sinai” being “cast out” with all its sons who are under bondage and death. The Old Covenant of commandments that brought death has no more relationship to people under the New Covenant than Hagar and Ishmael had with Sarah and Isaac. Abraham was the father of both Ishmael and Isaac, but Ishmael had no part in Isaac's inheritance (Gen. 21:9-21). God was the author of both covenants, but one was designed to bring death and guilt of sin, and the other was designed to bring life and freedom from sin. There can be no keeping of both, for the reasons given in Point 12, below. 9. The law was a covenant of types and shadows and was abolished when the realities of those shadows appeared. “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity [the law of bondage and death], even the law of commandments contained in ordinances . . . blotting out [making void] 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 [or reality of which those things were mere shadows] is of Christ” (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14-17). Followers of Moses today naturally attempt to explain away some of the New Testament passages which state that the old law or covenant has been “abolished,” but the more they attempt such an impossible job the more ridiculous their position becomes. It is like trying to sink a battleship with a blow gun. It cannot be done. In trying to explain away the passages mentioned above they say that “the law of commandments” referred to the ceremonial law, and that “the sabbath days” of Col. 2:14-17 were the ceremonial sabbaths and not the weekly sabbath. It is strange that they take this position for wherever “commandments” and “sabbath days” are found at every other place in Scripture they argue that they refer to the Ten Commandments and the weekly sabbaths. This only magnifies the inconsistency of their doctrine as well as their plain and open rebellion against the Word of God. If they are the sole representatives of God on Earth as they claim it is strange that they would fight God and His own Word.
Regardless of what Old Covenant disciples say about these passages, it is certain that Paul was not one with them because he did not one time require men to keep any certain day, especially the old fourth commandment sabbath. The Greek word for “sabbath” is in the plural and the word “days” is not in the original language, so it should read “sabbaths.” It is the same Greek word used of the weekly sabbaths in 59 other places, so it must refer to the weekly sabbath as well as any other sabbath of the Old Covenant.
The weekly sabbath as well as the other sabbaths are part of the ordinances given by God to Moses. The weekly sabbath was the first of eight feasts of the Lord in Lev. 23, “Concerning the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts. Six days shall work be done: but on the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.” After commanding this weekly “feast” and “holy convocation” the Lord next commanded the seasonal “feasts” and “holy convocations,” which were to be kept “in their seasons” (Lev. 23:2-4). Thus, we have a “weekly feast” and “seasonal feasts” and all were to be “holy convocations” and times of rest and holy worship. In Lev. 23:38, after giving the seven seasonal feasts, which were given after the weekly feast, the Lord said, “These are the feasts of the Lord . . . Besides the sabbaths of the Lord,” referring to the weekly sabbaths, thus proving that the word “sabbaths” includes the weekly sabbath as much as it does all other sabbaths. See also Exod. 31:13-17; Ezek. 20:12, 20, or any place where “sabbaths” is found, and one will have to acknowledge that the weekly sabbath is included in the word “sabbaths” in Col. 2:14-17. All these “feasts” were to be observed “for ever” (Lev. 23:14, 31, 41), so the theory of some that the weekly sabbath is the only eternal feast is unscriptural. All eight feasts were part of one eternal law that would have continued eternally, if man could have kept his part of the contract. Since man could not keep it and there was no provision in it to make a man righteous and capable of keeping it, then it had to be set aside for the New Covenant which does not have faults like the old one, as seen in Points 11 and 12, below. When the old law was “abolished,” the weekly sabbath (the sign of the Old Covenant to commemorate the deliverance from Egypt) was done away, with all other sabbaths and parts of the old law. The fact is, that eternal terms are used profusely in the so-called ceremonial part of the Law of Moses, but not one time are they used in connection with the Ten Commandments of Exod. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:1-21; so it can be proven with more authority that the ceremonial part of the law was external and the Ten Commandments were temporary, if we are going to use eternal terms as the basis of proof. The Greek word for “ordinances” is dogma, “a civil or religious law” (Lk. 2:1; Acts 16:4; 17:7; Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14). As we have already proven and will see more fully in Point X, below, the Ten Commandments were part of God's law to Israel, and since the whole law has been abolished, there are no grounds to prove that the law of commandments in Eph. 2:15 refers to all the laws except the Ten Commandments. If such commandments were the basis of the whole law as all men agree, then they would have to be included in the law of commandments that was abolished in Christ on the cross. As we have seen in Point I, above, it is the Ten Commandments that are singled out as having been “done away” and “abolished.” As we have seen above, the weekly sabbath is part of the ceremonial law. Therefore, when men admit that the “sabbaths” in Col. 2:14-17 refer to the ceremonial sabbaths they state the truth, but this does not mean that the weekly sabbath is not included in all the old law ceremonial sabbaths. 10. The old law was imperfect and had to be changed. Christ came “after the order of Melchisedec” and not after the Levitical priesthood which could not bring perfection and under which “the people received the law . . . For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change [abolishment] also of the law . . . For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did . . . By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament . . . For the law maketh men priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which is since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore . . . But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry [than Old Covenant priests], by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which is established upon better promises. For if that first covenant [from Sinai, Gal. 4:21-31] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. But finding fault with them, he saith . . . a new covenant, he hath made the first old [obsolete]. Now that [Old Covenant] which decayeth [is obsolete, discarded] and waxeth old is ready to vanish away [to be abrogated]. Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary . . . Which was a figure for the time then present . . . Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal [human] ordinances, imposed on them until the time of the reformation [setting things right of the new order] . . . for this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise, it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth [the New Covenant was not in force until Christ died]. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept [including the Ten Commandments] to all the people according to all the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats . . . and sprinkled both the book and all the people, Saying, this is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you . . . For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things can never . . . make the comers thereunto perfect . . . Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away [abolishes] the first [Old Covenant], that he may establish the second [New Covenant]” (Heb. 7:11-12, 22, 28; 8:6-13; 9:1, 9-10, 15-22; 10:1-18). The word “establish” here means to enact the laws of the New Covenant, while the word, as used in Rom. 3:31, means that the righteousness of the Old Covenant is upheld in the New Covenant by fulfilling that righteousness in men, not by the keeping of the old law, but by faith in Christ provided by the New Covenant (Rom. 8:1-4; Gal. 2:15-20; 3:1-14; 5:1-26). The many passages in Hebrews and in the other points above are clear in themselves that the Old Covenant with the Ten Commandments and all the laws given to Moses were abolished, abrogated and annulled.
II. Contrasts Between the Old and New Covenants
Contrasts between the Old and New Covenants prove that they were two distinct covenants made for different purposes and to be in force at different times:
15. One made nothing perfect; the other made perfect (Heb. 7:19). 16. One was glorious; the other was more glorious (2 Cor. 3). 20. One remembered sins; the other forgets sin (Heb. 10:3; 8:12). III. The Old and New Covenants Illustrated
The Scriptures we have studied prove that Christians are not under the law in any sense. No Christian is obligated to keep the Ten Commandments, not one of them, because they are part of the Old Covenant that was “abolished.” However, those commandments and laws of the Old Covenant that were brought into the New Covenant, the Christian is still obligated to keep, not because they were in the Old Covenant, but because they are in the New Covenant. Only men today who persist in being under the law are under it, and they are going to be held accountable for every detail of the law (Gal. 3:10-12; 5:3; Jas. 2:10). If they persist in keeping the old law sabbath, then they are responsible for not being circumcised, for not offering sacrifices and for not doing everything else the law requires. To the Christian, the question is, does the New Covenant forbid murder, robbery, adultery, etc.? If it does, then these things cannot be tolerated under the New Covenant. If the New Covenant commands a sabbath like the Old Covenant did, then the Christian is obligated to keep a certain day, but if such is not commanded in the New Covenant, then the Christian is free from that obligation.
If a contract had been made between two men to be in force up to Jan. 1, 1949, that contract would automatically cease to be in force on that date. After that date no court would recognize any part of the old contract as binding the parties. If the same two men wanted a new contract it would be up to them to make a new one. If they did not want one detail of the old contract in the new one that would be up to them. Or, if they wanted only parts of the old contract included in the new one, they could make these parts as much in force in the new contract as they were in the old one. Only those parts of the old contract that they agreed to bring into the new contract would be in force in the new contract.
So it is with the Old and New Covenants. Those parts of the Old Covenant that God wanted to be a part of the New Covenant are as much in force under the New Covenant as they were in the old one. Israel promised to obey the Old Covenant when it was proposed by God (Exod. 19:3-8; 24:1-8). Jesus came to make a New Covenant to replace the old one, and it is only when it is accepted by man that the benefits of the New Covenant are enjoyed by man who then becomes a party to it (Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:16-19; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; Rev. 22:17). If men do not accept the terms of the New Covenant, then they have to pay the original death penalty incurred by Adam, choosing it in preference to the terms of the new contract (Gen. 2:16-18; Rom. 5:12-21; Mk. 16:16; Heb. 2:3). IV. What Part of the Old Covenant Is Made a Part of the New One?
It is admitted by all denominations that the ceremonial laws are not part of the New Covenant; so it is unnecessary to discuss this point. The big question is whether the whole Ten Commandments are a part of the New Covenant or not. By an honest investigation anyone can soon find nine of the Ten Commandments in the New Covenant, but the fourth commandment, which refers to the sabbath, is nowhere to be found. New Covenant Scriptures on the Ten Commandments are:
V. Why is the Fourth Commandment Left Out of the Covenant?
1. Neither God nor Jesus commanded it to be a part of the covenant, for the all-sufficient reason that they did not want it as a part of that covenant. If they had wanted it to be a part of the New Covenant it was in their power to command that it be so, as it was in the Old Covenant. But since they did not require the fourth commandment to be a part of it and since the New Covenant teaches that men are to be persuaded in their own minds as to what day they want to observe, it is the height of folly to follow a practice in any Christian organization that God did not see fit to make a part of the New Covenant (Rom. 14:1-11; Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:14-17). Of all the words of Jesus on Earth there are only four references to the sabbath: (1) “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day” (Mt. 12:8; Mk. 2:28; Lk. 6:1-9). If He is Lord of it and did not see fit to make it a part of the New Covenant, then it certainly is presumptuous of man to make it a part of that covenant. (2) “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mk. 2:27). Therefore, to be bound so strictly by a day as were the Jews, would bring the bondage of the Old Covenant into the new one. (See the Jewish Talmud for the insensible slavery to a certain day). (4) “Pray that your flight be not in winter, neither on the sabbath day” (Mt. 24:20). This refers to the last days when Jews will have to flee Judea from the Antichrist. Orthodox Jews will not travel more than a mile on the sabbath (Acts 1:12), so Jesus warns them to pray they will not have to flee on this day in order that they might escape quickly. Not one of these references commands Christians to keep the old law sabbath, so since it is done away along with the old law, as we have seen in Point I, above, why neither God nor Jesus made the fourth commandment a part of the New Covenant can be seen from the points below.
2. The old Jewish sabbath was a particular “sign” and “token” of the Old Covenant between God and Israel: “The Lord God make a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers (not with Adam, Noah, Abraham, or any other man in the past, as some teach He did), but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day . . . Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath; but with him (of the Gentiles) that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him (coming generations) that is not here this day” (Deut. 5:2-3; 29:13-15; 1 Chron. 16:17; 2 Chron. 5:10). “My sabbaths shall ye (Israel, and the Gentiles in the nation of Israel) keep: for it is a sign between me and you . . . ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you (set you apart from all people to God) . . . It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever” (Exod. 31:13-18). “I gave them my sabbaths to be a sign between me and them . . . They shall be a sign between me and you” (Ezek. 20:12-20). “Remember (not the seventh day of recreation when God rested, but) that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord brought thee out thence through a mighty hand . . . Therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day” (Deut. 5:15). “Remember” (Exod. 20:8) refers to the sabbath of Exod. 16:23, which was given before the Ten Commandments, and not the sabbath of Gen. 2:3, which they could not possibly remember because of not having been there. These numerous passages show the exact purpose of keeping the sabbath between God and Israel. It was to commemorate their deliverance from slavery in Egypt when they had no rest. Only such Gentiles as came out of Egypt with the Israelites and were part of the nation of Israel were commanded to keep this sabbath and the old law (Exod. 12:49; Num. 15:15-16). The Old Covenant then was one between God and the nation of Israel and it never was between God and the Gentiles who were not part of Israel. Moses recognized this when he bragged to Israel that they were the only nation on Earth that had the Old Covenant laws (Deut. 4:7-10). David recognized that Israel alone had such laws and to God they were a special people (2 Sam. 7:23; 1 Chron. 17:21). Paul taught that the Jews had an advantage over the Gentiles because of having the law (Rom. 2:17-29; 3:1-2, 9-20; 7:1; 9:4-5; 11:11). Jesus also recognized this when He said He was sent only to the Jews (Mt. 10:5-6; 15:24; 21:33-46). It is through the fall of the Jews that salvation is come unto the Gentiles (Rom. 11:11). Paul definitely said “the Gentiles, which have not the law” and thus the Gentiles were made guilty before God by other means than breaking the law (Rom. 1:21-32; 2:12-16; 1 Cor. 9:20-21). Gentiles were not of the circumcision because they were not under the law (Exod. 12:48; Judg. 14:3; 15:18; Jer. 9:26; Rom. 2:26; 3:30; 4:9; 1 Cor. 7:18; Eph. 2:11; Gal. 2:7-14). Thus, the Gentiles were not under either the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants, which had circumcision. It was necessary for the New Covenant to be made, so that God could save all men alike. All men had been proven guilty of sin, in Adam and by different means since, so now provision had to be made for those outside the Jewish covenant, as well as for the Jews. The New Covenant and the Gospel make such provision and now all men can be saved apart from any special covenant between God and Israel (Rom. 3:21-31; 4:13-25; Gal. 2:16-21; 3:1-24). Abraham's promised blessing can benefit all men alike, apart from circumcision, which sealed the covenant with Abraham and Moses. Abraham received his blessing before he was circumcised (Rom. 4:9-12). Gentiles and Jews can be blessed through Christ, apart from law keeping (Gal. 3:13-14, 19-29; 5:1-26). This promise was given to Abraham 430 years before the law (Gal. 3:17-25), and a number of years before he was circumcised (Gen. 17:9-27). This promise was one of “faith” and the law is not of faith (Rom. 4; Gal. 3:6-12). If one keeps these things in mind he can understand some statements of Paul, James, and others to Jews concerning the law that never would have been written to Gentile Christians (Rom. 2:17-29; 3:1-2; 9:1–11:29; Jas. 1:1; 2:10, 11). The Old Covenant was made between God and Israel, and keeping the sabbath was a particular sign or token between God and Israel to commemorate their deliverance from Egypt. There would be no object in making this sabbath a part of the New Covenant, which concerns all nations who never were delivered from Egypt. Thus, the sabbath would not have the same meaning to other nations as it would to Israel; hence, it was left out of the New Covenant entirely. If all men were to have a sabbath in the New Covenant, it would have to be another day and for a purpose different from the old Jewish sabbath of the Old Covenant. This is why Christians keep Sunday—to commemorate the resurrection, the beginning of the new creation in Christ. From the standpoint of resting every seventh day and having a day of worship to God, Sunday meets all the requirements of both man and God, and is in keeping with the New Covenant and the early Christian practices, as we shall see in Point VI, below.
3. The fourth commandment is the only one of the ten that was a ceremonial law. Its sole purpose was to commemorate the deliverance from Egypt (Deut. 5:15) and be a type or shadow of the rest in Christ and in eternity (Heb. 4:1-11; 10:1; Col. 2:14-17). Since it is the only commandment that had a typical meaning it is only natural that it cease to be a part of the New Covenant, which brings the reality of what it typified (Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 4:1-11). The physical and spiritual benefits of a rest day can be realized on Sunday as well as on a Saturday. The ceremonial and memorial nature of the fourth commandment is further proven by the fact that it was for a particular people in a certain land, and because it is the only law of the ten that has been broken and can be broken without violating some moral law which affects both God and man. It is impossible to keep the fourth commandment in all lands, as proven in Point IX, below.
4. The sabbath commandment was the only one of the ten that could degenerate into a mere form without affecting the morals of human beings. All others concern moral obligations of man to God. It was the only one that could be omitted without affecting the highest good of all. No other one of the ten but the fourth commandment could be done away with and still leave a moral law that covered every need of man in his relation to both God and other men.
In Rom. 13:7-10 Paul sums up the New Covenant commandments. After listing a few he adds, “If there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended (summed up) in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” He did not list the fourth commandment here or elsewhere as being necessary in the New Covenant. If it was half as important as some teach that it is, it certainly would have been listed with other commandments at least one time in the New Covenant. It was of no moral value, and since its religious and physical benefits could be enjoyed as well on any other day, it is no longer necessary in the New Covenant as it was in the Old. 5. It was foretold that the sabbath would be abolished because it had become something to be abhorred by God. The reason God hated it was because of the sins and hypocrisy of Israel in keeping the sabbath, which was a “sign” between Him and Israel. “I will cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts” (Hos. 2:11). “Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them” (Isa. 1:10-15). 6. The prophets not only predicted that God would do away with the old sabbaths of the Old Covenant, but that He would make a New Covenant with Israel when their Messiah would come to Earth to set up His kingdom (Isa. 42:6; 49:8; 59:21; Jer. 31:31-40; 32:37-44; Ezek. 36:24-38). The New Covenant was made at the First Advent of Christ, but was not accepted by Israel and will not be until the Second Advent, as explained in these passages and in Rom. 11:25-29; Heb. 8:8-12; 10:16-18; Mt. 23:37-39. In Ps. 78:1-2 it was predicted that the Messiah would open His mouth and utter a “law” and speak things kept secret from the foundation of the world. This was fulfilled in Mt. 13:35; Jn. 1:17; 12:49-50; 14:15, 21-24; Acts 1:2. Therefore, the old theory that the New Covenant was made known to Adam, Abraham and all other men, and that it is the same as the Old Covenant, is unscriptural. Disciples of Moses argue that the New Covenant is the same as the old one, the great difference being that in the Old Covenant the laws were written on stones, whereas in the New Covenant the same laws are written on the heart. It is utterly foolish to argue that the place where a contract is written makes a difference in the contract. Because it was predicted that the New Covenant was to be written on the heart does not make it the same as the Old Covenant. Even the Old Covenant was to be written on the heart (Deut. 4:9; 6:5-6; 30:6-20; Prov. 3:1-3; 7:3; Ps. 37:31; 50:16; 119:11; Exod. 13:9; Isa. 51:7; Jer. 20:9; Ezek. 3:10). The Old Covenant was to be written on two mountains (Deut. 27); in books for the priests, kings and people (Deut. 17:18-19; 31:9-11); and on the gates, door posts, hands, and other places (Deut. 6:6-9); but every time it was written on a new place, that did not make it a new covenant. As seen in Point III, the New Covenant was entirely a new contract that took the place of the Old Covenant, so the old Jewish sabbath of the Old Covenant naturally was done away with, for its purpose could not be the same to Christians as it was to Jews. 7. The sabbath of the Old Covenant was not a memorial of the old creation. If it was a memorial of the old creation which was cursed by sin, it is only proper that it be done away with and a new sabbath be instituted as a memorial of the new creation in Christ. It is better to commemorate the present new creation than the old creation that was cursed. The Bible, however, teaches that the Jews were to keep the sabbath as a memorial of the day they were delivered from Egypt (Deut. 5:15), so their sabbath could not possibly be the proper day for all nations to keep because they had no such deliverance. This is why it is not a day to be kept in the New Covenant. Not one Scripture says the old sabbath was a memorial of the old creation. Because keeping the sabbath was a memorial day of the deliverance from Egypt and a typical practice of the rest in Christ to come, it could be broken and has been broken many times without the committing of moral sin. The day that Israel left Egypt was established as their sabbath (Num. 33:3; Lev. 23:5-11). Israel “marched around Jericho” (Josh. 6); “set up the tabernacle” (Exod. 40:1, 17 with Lev. 23:5-11); “searched out Canaan” (Num. 13:25); “made war” (1 Ki. 20:29; 2 Ki. 3:9; Josh. 6); “circumcised” (Jn. 7:22-23); and did other things on the sabbath and were guiltless. David and priests of old broke it and were guiltless (Mt. 12:2-5). If any other of the Ten Commandments had been broken no man would have been morally guiltless, thus, the fourth commandment, being of a memorial and of a typical nature, has no place in the New Covenant where we have the rest of which it was a type and where we could never observe it as the day of deliverance from Egypt. God's Plan for Man.
If Paul obeyed his own teachings it would not have been on the Jewish sabbath that Christians gathered, for he taught Gentiles to get as far away from the law as possible, as we have seen in Rom. 14:5-6; Gal. 4:9-10; 5:3-4; Col. 2:14-17.
Colossians 2:13-17 (NIV)
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
