Christians and the Law of Moses (#1)

Letters from listeners, even from those who disagree with what I have preached - especially from those who disagree with what I have taught - inspire me to study even harder so that I may teach the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. One of my accidental listeners heard a lesson in which I spoke briefly about a left-leaning church in Huntsville, Alabama, that attempts to keep the Passover. He accused me of speaking disdainfully of that church. I disagree with that church's decision because it is a violation of the gospel of Christ, but I do not speak disdainfully of anyone. I sometimes discuss atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and other unbelievers, but I do not speak disdainfully of them. The apostle Paul disagreed with some of the Christians at Corinth and criticized them severely, but he assured them of his love for them (2 Cor. 12:14-15).

The e-mail mentioned that I had referred to the Passover as a Jewish feast day. That is not exactly what I said, but that is close enough. The author of the letter then mentions Leviticus 23 - a chapter that lists all of God's holy days. They are called "the feasts of the Lord" and they were binding on Jews and only Jews under the Mosaic covenant. For example, the Passover had meaning for Jews alone. No Gentile was ever in bondage in Egypt. So the Passover for Christians is of purely historical value. The only Passover for Christians is Jesus Christ our Lord. Is that not what Paul told the Corinthians? "For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Cor. 5:7).

The Mosaic covenant never included any Gentile - not even one - unless some Gentile wanted to be a part of that covenant. The process is called proselytization. If you have the slightest doubt about that fact, please listen to the words of Moses. "And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, 0 Israel, the statutes and judgments, which I speak in your ears this day, that you may learn them, and keep them, and do them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day" (Dt. 5:1-3). The covenant was made with the Jewish nation and not with anyone else. The covenant Moses had in mind was not made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the Jewish patriarchs. The covenant God made with Israel at Horeb was cancelled. It no long applies to anyone.

Was that covenant really cancelled? The King James Version does not use the word "cancelled," but what else did the author of Hebrews mean? I do not have time to examine all the author of Hebrews has written about the two covenants - the Jewish and the Christian covenants - but it is imperative that I take notice of some of his inspired statements. The book of Hebrews tells us that Jesus Christ is our high priest. He is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek - not after the order of Aaron. Now please listen with an open heart. "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity also a change in the law. For he of whom these things were spoken pertains to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning the priesthood" (Heb. 7:11-14). If any of the old covenant is still binding, Jesus Christ is not the Christian's high priest.

Hebrews 8 contrasts the old covenant with the new and concludes: "In that he says, A new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13). The English Standard Version renders the Greek: "In speaking of a new covenant, he has made the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." The author of Hebrews does not imply that parts of the Mosaic covenant have become obsolete. He teaches very plainly that all of it has become obsolete - including the Ten Commandments and "the feasts of the Lord." Not one precept of the Mosaic covenant is binding on anyone. If even one of the commandments of the law is binding on Christians, all of them are. It is not possible to take parts of the old covenant and parts of the new and please God almighty. If you have the slightest doubt about that, please read the book of Galatians. Mixing and mingling the two covenants means we are preaching another gospel. Preaching another gospel will cause one to be accursed (Gal. 1:8-9).

The Mosaic covenant was the law of God, but it was a shadow of good things to come. "It was impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins" (Heb. 10:1,4). The author of Hebrews affirms: "Wherefore when he (Christ) comes into the world, he says, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body thou has prepared for me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure." Now please listen carefully. "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, 0 God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither had pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, 0 God. He takes away the first that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:5-10). The English Standard Version translates the second part of verse 9: "He abolishes the first in order to establish the second." I have some questions based on this reading. How much of the old covenant did Christ remove? Did he abolish just part of it or all of it? He took away the entire old covenant that he might establish the new covenant.

My correspondent asserts: "These feast days were commanded to be kept by ALL of Israel." He emphasized the word "all." I have absolutely no problem with that view. Yes, God commanded the Israelites to keep all of those feast days. The only problem is: we are not under the Jewish covenant. The passages I have read to you from Hebrews show conclusively that the Mosaic covenant had to be changed because there was a change in the priesthood (Heb. 7:12). When Christ established the new covenant, that meant the old covenant was obsolete and was removed forever (Heb. 8:13).

The author of the e-mail I am examining says the Bible nowhere states that we are to observe Easter or Christmas or Sunday as a day of worship. I wholeheartedly agree that Easter and Christmas are manmade days. The word of God nowhere authorizes Christians to set these days apart as holy days. Anyone who has done his homework knows the origin of these days. Faithful churches of Christ do not observe Easter or Christmas. Our day of worship is the day on which our Lord was raised from the dead - the Lord's day. No church has a right to add to or take from what God has ordained (Rev. 22:18-19).

But are we authorized to observe Sunday as the day of worship? My correspondent says no, but the scriptures teach otherwise. Even sabbatarians generally agree that Christ was raised from the dead on the first day of the week - Sunday. The church of our Lord was established on Sunday. The church at Corinth met on the first day of the week to worship. "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so you do. Upon the first day of the week, let everyone of you lay by in store, as God has prospered him, that there be no gathering when I come" (l Cor. 16:1-2). In his commentary, The Interpretation of I and II Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), Dr. R. C. H. Lenski, a distinguished Lutheran scholar, makes the following observations on the term, "the first day of the week": "The first day of the week is Sunday, and (the preposition kata, translated "upon") is distributive so that we may translate: 'Sunday by Sunday let each of you lay by.' It is a fair inference that Sunday was the day that was set aside for the public worship of the Corinthian congregation, and that this custom was also followed in Galatia, and in other churches that had been founded by Paul" (p. 759).

That the first day of the week or Sunday was the day set aside for the public worship of the church can be seen in Luke's record of the worship of the church at Troas. "And upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight" (Acts 20:7). The late Dr. F. F. Bruce was one of the world's most influential evangelicals scholars. In his commentary on The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954) Dr. Bruce says: "The statement that at Troas the travelers and their fellow-Christians dwelling in that port met together for the breaking of bread 'upon the first day of the week' is the earliest unambiguous evidence we have for the Christian practice of gathering together for worship on that day" (pp. 407-408). My friend Wayne Jackson's commentary on The Acts of the Apostles: From Jerusalem to Rome (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2004) concludes: "For the first several centuries of the church's existence, the written testimony is uniform that Christians met for worship on Sunday." Wayne quotes Johann Lorenz von Mosheim, the German Lutheran church historian, as saying: "All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week, on which the triumphant Savior arose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of public worship" (p. 250). I need to say in passing: If the first day of the week Sunday - were not the day for Christian worship, then Christians have no special day since the Sabbath had been removed. My correspondent asserts without any proof whatsoever: "Sunday was ordered to be observed by a Catholic by the name of Constantine in the 4^th century A. D. Sunday worshippers worshipped the sun and therefore named it the venerable day of the sun. Anyone who observes the pagan holidays of Easter and Christmas, and worships on Sunday ARE Catholic whether or not they want to admit it. Catholic writings admit that they are the ones that think that they have the authority to change God's Holy Days and Sabbaths to whenever they want." It would take several lessons to answer the false charges in this paragraph. These charges have been made for many years and have been answered over and over. There is absolutely no basis for these charges.

Constantine may have commanded his subjects to worship on the Lord's Day, but that has nothing to do with our responsibility to worship on Sunday. The Sabbath law had been annulled a long time before Constantine was even born. And no human being changed the day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday. The days were actually not changed. The Sabbath law ended when it was nailed to the cross (Col. 2: 14-17). Then in the new covenant, the Lord ordained that we should worship on Sunday - the Lord's day. I have already shown that from a number of New Testament passages. Sabbatarians generally argue that the Roman Catholic Church changed our day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. Are there Catholics who teach that? There probably are, but that is not true. God himself is responsible for appointing Sunday - the first day of the week - as the day Christians should meet to worship him. Incidentally, Sunday is not the Christian Sabbath, as I hear some radio and television preachers insist.

The author of the e-mail illogically affirms: "Anyone who observes the pagan holidays of Easter and Christmas and worships on Sunday ARE Catholic whether or not they want to admit it." There are thousands and thousands of parents who have their babies sprinkled. Does that make them Roman Catholics? There are many churches that have statues in their churches. Does that make those churches Catholic? Sabbatarians engage in many practices that can be found in Catholic churches. Does that make sabbatarian churches Catholic? It is ridiculous to affirm that those who worship on Sunday - the Lord's day - are Catholics. My correspondent needs a course in logic.

He also writes: "I would now like to prove from the Bible that we are to keep all of the Holy Days found in Leviticus 23. Genesis 17:1-17 is where God gave the Everlasting Covenant to Abraham. This covenant is still in effect today! Proof? Psalm 105:6-10 reads: '0 you seed of Abraham his servant, you children of Jacob his chosen. He is the Lord our God; his judgments are in all the earth." I shall examine this paragraph. My correspondent is mixing two covenants - the one God made with Abraham and the one he made with Moses. I am not for one minute denying that parts of the covenant God made with Abraham are still in effect. The land promise is no longer in effect. Israel forfeited that promise a long time ago. The apostle Paul reminded his Galatian brothers and sisters: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He says not, And to seeds (plural) as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ" (Gal. 3:16). Paul even tells the Galatians that there is a difference between the Abrahamic covenant and the one God made with Moses and the Israelites. "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of no effect." Paul concludes that chapter: "If you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3: 17, 29). The Law of Moses does annul the covenant God made with Abraham, as you can surely understand from Paul's letter to the Galatians. And the holy days of the Mosaic covenant have absolutely nothing to do with the covenant God made with Abraham.

The author of the e-mail quotes Psalm 105:6-10 to attempt to prove we must keep the holy days of the Mosaic covenant. The Psalmist was not speaking of the Law of Moses. He was talking about the covenant God made with Abraham. There were certainly some aspects of the Abrahamic covenant that applied under the Mosaic covenant. But there is almost certainly no knowledgeable Bible student who believes that every precept of the Mosaic covenant is applicable to the Christian era. How many sabbatarians actually offer animal sacrifices, burn incense, practice circumcision as a religious rite and oppose placing an ox and a horse in a yoke together?

Has God remembered his covenant forever - the covenant he commanded to a thousand generations? I believe most Bible students will agree that God has never broken a covenant. But his covenant with the Jews on Mount Sinai was cancelled. The apostle Paul asked the Galatians: "Wherefore then serves the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hands of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if there had been a law which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith in Christ might be given to them who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed." Please listen carefully. "Wherefore the law as our schoolmaster (or tutor) to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith has come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster" (Gal. 3: 19-25).

The Jews, including the apostle Paul, were under the Law of Moses - which Paul calls a schoolmaster or a tutor. But that law has been replaced by the gospel of Jesus Christ. "But after that faith has come we are no longer under a schoolmaster (or tutor)" (Gal. 3:25). I do not deny for one moment that the Jews had to observe the holy days. That was a significant part of their covenant with God. But if we deny that the Mosaic covenant has been abolished, we are denying dozens and dozens of biblical passages to try to justify keeping the Sabbath and other Old Testament ordinances. These have all become obsolete and have been abolished (Heb. 8: 13).

My correspondent refers to the promise God made which involved a thousand generations (Psa. 105: 8). He asks: "Have a thousand generations passed since the covenant was given to Abraham?" He answers his own question. "Absolutely not." There are some serious problems with his reasoning. The language the Psalmist uses is figurative, like his saying that the cattle on a thousand hills belong to the Lord (Psa. 50: 10). Could that possibly be the cattle on 999 hills or 1001 hills? In his great commentary, Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959), Dr. H. C. Leupold says concerning the thousand generations: "It would seem to be best to understand the phrase ... as describing the time God remembers: he was always mindful of his covenant" (p. 736). We must not confuse the two covenants - the one God made with Abraham and the one he made with Moses and the Jews. The one God made with Moses has "been annulled. Its precepts are not binding on anyone during the Christian era. If men try to be justified by the Law of Moses, they have fallen away from grace (Gal. 5: 1-4).

Winford Claiborne

The International Gospel Hour

P.O. Box 118

Fayetteville, TN 37334