Sabbath & The ‘Two Law’ Theory

Since Matthew 5:17 says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” The theory and the counterpoints are an interesting study, particularly since Ephesians 2:15 indicates that “…by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.” In keeping with this weeks chapter in Doriani is addressing how to solve problems. At face value, the “problem” for me is that these two statements are a bit tough to reconcile. So the relationship between the decalogue and the written laws are interesting to consider in light of these two passages as well.

[Reply]

I honestly was not aware before now that the Sabbararians made such distinction. God spoke to every facet of human life in “the laws,” and as Riggle said, I don’t remember seeing any such distinction in the the canon of Scripture. Also, how do they know which law Jesus abolished on the cross, if according to them, only one was abolished. On the cross Jesus cried, “it is finished” and to me that meant everything, all the law. In 2 Cor. 3:13 reference is made to Moses’ in connection with that which is abolished. Since it is the whole Pentateuch that is ascribed to Moses, it is the whole Penateuch that waa abolished. Indeed, it is finish!

[Reply]

Oswald Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 10:11 pm

On the issue of the distinction between moral and ceremonial law in the Bible, and who makes such a distinction, it is instructive to note that the Westminster Confession (1646) got into the act as well.

Quoting from Chapter XIX,

“I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

II. This law, after his Fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a Church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.

IV. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

V. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.”

We should also note this interesting distinction in the NT, of course without the actual use of the words “moral” and “ceremonial”‘

“Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” 1Cor. 7:19

[Reply]

I have concluded that one reason why Sabbatarians succeed in their non-biblical claims is that Sunday worshippers pay little attention to the Sunday Sabbath debate, which is unfortunate. I have had to take on this debate as a personal research, and my verse of comfort has been Colssians 2:16-17 ‘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.’ It is useful to have this explanation to further concretize why we do not feel compelled to keep the Sabbath, it speaks to the issue directly concerning moral and ceremonial laws that are often presented in Sabbatarian claims.

[Reply]

Oswald Reply:
June 23rd, 2010 at 11:40 pm

Are we to understand that the claims for Sunday-keeping are biblical?

[Reply]

Clinton Chisholm Reply:
June 30th, 2010 at 7:43 am

Oswald,
Most definitely, read Lev. 23 and note that two of the feasts, Weeks/Firstfruits and Pentecost could only be celebrated on Sunday and both foreshadowed New Testament realities – the resurrection of Jesus on a Sunday and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Church also on a Sunday.

[Reply]

Oswald Reply:
July 10th, 2010 at 7:35 am

First, a minor correction: Feast of Weeks is not the same festival as First Fruits. Feast of Weeks is the same as Pentecost. First Fruits is associated with the Wave Sheaf.
Secondly, these feasts, like our birthdays, were to be celebrated according to dates (14th day of the first month, 15th day, etc.), and so would fall on different days of the week annually, rather than on the same day every year.
Thirdly, it is true that the seven feasts of Leviticus 23 foreshadowed New Testament realities, and that two of them, First Fruits and Pentecost, occurred on Sundays in the year of Jesus’ death, and were thus fulfilled on Sundays, through the resurrection of Jesus and the outpouring of the Spirit respectively. However, these occurrences, in and of themselves, do not constitute evidence that God has mandated Sunday-keeping.

This topic of the seventh-day sabbath is one that has gone on for a long time. It’s a sensative issue and often debated. Strange thing is the bible counsels against debating particularly on issues of theology/doctrine. What we are encouraged to do however is reason together and through proper discernment and guidance of the Holy Spirit dispell, misunderstanding or outright false teachings.
In the many pros and cons given for or agains the sabbath this topic of the ‘covenant’ is often used. A covenant is an agreement between two parties. A covenant is often accompanied by requirments, stipulations, conditions, or parameters. The covenant refered to in Exodus, Deuteronomy, 1 Cor. etc. is such an agreement or promise made between God and the Isrealites. They promised to do the things God commanded them to do, so the covenant was the promise they made and the laws given by God are the condition or a factor of the agreement and not the promis/agreement or covenant itself. A perfect example of this is the marriage covenent. A man and woman covenant or promise to devote themselves to each other to be husband and wife for the rest of their lives. Some parameters of that agreement include the vows of honoring, loving, cherishing, keeping only to each other sexually and so on.
The Isrealites failed miserably at their covenant/promise they could not keep it as much as they tried by their one will and strength. They coud not keep the promise to keep the laws or commandments of God by themselves. This is why Jesus said in regards to the new covenant in Hebrews 8 it was faulty because it was a promise made by the Isrealites in their own strength on their own abilities which was bound to fail. So a new covenant was given where the law of God would be placed in their hearts and by God’s power they would be able to live the law instead of trying to obey the law in their in strength which they would have never been able to do.
Regarding the laws that were done away with these were refering to the ceremonial laws and services with sacrificing the lambs and the Holy place and Most Holy place, and earthly High Priest; these were only a sign of the ultimate sacrifice (Christ death on the Cross) to come and the position that Jesus would take as our interceding Heavenly High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary. Note that at the moment Christ died the curtain in the earthly temple ripped from top to bottom.
Hope this helps to clarify any misunderstanding or misinterpretations. Let us continue to strive for the higher calling of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. In love and services
DiscipAL

[Reply]

In terms of point #4 Moses did not have to write down the law. God Wrote it Himself and made a point of wrtitnig it Himself. What are the qoutations from the Sabbath keepers about the Decalogue not be part of the “book of the law”?
#8 There was a differenc mentioned by you. The decalogue was place in the are under the Mercy Seat but the others were placed at the side (#1). One was written by God the other was not.
Question. Did not God told to Moses to build after the patern shown him. Is this not a pattern of the Heavenly. (Hebrews). If so, does this not also show that the law with the Sabbath is in Heaven under God throne?

Judith, if the whole law is abolished we can not sin for there will be no law to transgress. there is no need of Christ in our lives.

[Reply]

IT would indeed be far-fetched for anyone to claim that either the book of the law or the ceremonial law was the old covenant. And if it has been done, it is definitely not a standard claim by Sabbath-keepers. One of our standard claims is that the ceremonial law has been abolished. However, that should not be equated with claiming that the ceremonial law was the old covenant. That would be a serious misrepresentation.

Having read Riggle’s “devastating” comments, including his assertion that the place to find references to ceremonial and moral law is in Adventist literature, I am left to conclude that John Wesley was an Adventist ahead of time. In his “Sermon 25” (Sermon on the Mount, 5 ) Wesley distinguishes between ceremonial and moral law.

In addition, references to ceremonial and moral law were being made at least as far back as the 16th Century, as Sabbath-keeping was revived by some Christians during the Protestant Reformation (see e.g. SABBATH KEEPERS DURING THE REFORMATION TIMES). And another on-line article, entitled “THE NEW PERSPECTIVE’S VIEW OF PAUL AND THE LAW”, by Jack Hughes, provides evidence pointing to widespread references to ceremonial and moral law in non-Adventist literature. Riggle is misleading on this point.

But what if the words “moral” and “ceremonial” do not occur in the Bible in relation to the law? Can that be taken as a credible argument against the existence of such categories of law in the scriptures? Have not Christians for centuries been using words not in the Bible to describe biblical things? E.g. we say that the government of ancient Israel was first and foremost a “theocracy”, a description that is never used in the Bible. But we know what a theocracy is, and that it describes the system of government imposed on Israel. Similarly, we understand what is meant by “moral” and “ceremonial”, so that, even though these actual designations are not found in the Bible, (and notwithstanding the fact that the many laws in the O.T. are often represented as one law, “the law”) we can identify laws in the O.T. that fit into both the moral and ceremonial categories. God has given His children power to discern. Come to think of it, Bible students have also identified “civil” laws among the package given to Israel – as shown in Hughes’ article.

“Moral” has to do with the principles or rules of right conduct, or the distinction between right and wrong, righteousness and sin. Thus, even though it can be argued that every law or command ever given by God is to some extent moral, that does not negate the fact that the commands of the Decalogue are timeless, God-given standards for human behaviour, and therefore stand out as moral laws. On the other hand, some laws were given only for ceremonial purposes, and were never intended as enduring guides to moral behaviour. E.g. everyone can easily see that stealing will always be wrong, while bringing a lamb to the temple was only a symbolic, ritual measure, and therefore temporary.

It is true that in the Bible the law is often referred to as the covenant. In fact, this kind of reference lends to the tantalising conclusion that the “everlasting covenant” that is described as being “broken” by the inhabitants of the earth, thus leading to a terrible curse (Isa. 24:5), is in fact the eternal law of God in heaven, which no one can say is abolished, and of which the Decalogue is an earthly representation.

My point here though, is that it is incorrect to conclude that the Bible intends to limit the reader to an understanding that the Sinaitic covenant was the law.

In explanation I note that in Mark 14:12 the scripture refers to the first day of unleavened bread, “when they killed the passover” (referring to a lamb), and similarly in Luke 22:7 the rendering is, “the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.” Are we by these references being taught by the scripture that the Passover was an animal? No. We are obviously here dealing with a cultural and/or linguistic usage, since the overall evidence shows that the Passover was, firstly, an event that took place in Egypt just before the Exodus, and, secondly, an annual commemorative/prophetic festival in Israel.

Similarly, the overall evidence shows that a covenant is first and foremost a promise or set of promises to do something – and that was the case with the Sinaitic covenant: it was first and foremost a set of promises (note e.g. Israel’s repeated promise to do all that the Lord said [Exod. 19:8; 24:3, 7]). Indeed, in Heb. 8: 6 we are significantly informed that the new covenant is based upon “better promises” (than the old one, of course). It is therefore only in a secondary sense, based on the cultural/linguistic usage, that the law is referred to as the covenant.

It is also true that transgression of the law was referred to as breaking the covenant. But what else could it be? The Israelites covenanted at Sinai to keep the law. Therefore, it follows without saying that whenever they broke the law they broke the covenant – they broke their promise to keep the law. Therefore, references to the breaking of the law as breaking the covenant cannot be properly interpreted as meaning that the law was the covenant.

Nevertheless, the law was indeed critical to the Sinaitic covenant; however, it is no less critical to the new covenant. Under both covenants, obedience to the law was/is required. At Sinai, Israel promised to obey the law that was written on stone. In the new covenant, God promises to write the law on the heart, to ensure that His people can meet its requirements (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10; 10:16; Ezek. 36:26, 27). So, we see how the new covenant is based on better promises.

Again, notwithstanding the texts which treat the Decalogue and the command to love (God and one’s neighbour) as though they were separate laws, it should be evident to all, except the surface reader, that the command to love is really a summary of the Decalogue, and cannot really be different from it. (See e.g. Rom. 13: 8-10). Put the other way around, the Decalogue is an expansion of the command to love (God’s eternal law of love); and while we’re in this mode, it should also be said that laws such as those in Lev. 18 are not additions to the Decalogue, but expansions of it. I would however agree that such laws should not be categorised as ceremonial, since the ceremonial laws are really those which relate to the sanctuary services, feast days, and such like – they have to do with ceremonies, ritual.

Whatever is said about the Decalogue and all the other laws, it is evident from everything connected with the giving of the Decalogue – God’s speaking of it in trumpet-like tones directly to Israel, His writing of it on tables of stone, His giving it pride of place in the ark of the covenant – that it was all designed to impress upon Israel, and everyone else, that this law was special, and pivotal.

[Reply]

Very interesting. Thank you for this insight.

[Reply]

This discussion highlights some matters which should concern serious Bible students:
1. Riggle’s broadcasting, without checking the facts, that the place to find the use of the terms “ceremonial” and “moral” with reference to the law is in Adventist literature.

The evidence shows that such usage is widespread, and of historical proportions.

2. The practice of some expositors, when attacking certain beliefs, of insisting that:
• Such and such a thing is wrong because a particular word is not found in the Bible
• A particular division or classification of Biblical material is wrong because the Bible itself does not make such a division or classification.
This practice amounts to the unwitting promotion of false principles of interpretation, which, when you check, few self-respecting Christians would admit believing in.
Referring to things Biblical by the use of words or classifications/divisions not used by the Bible is not only standard among Bible scholars, but also quite acceptable, provided such usages can be supported by the evidence.

[Reply]

I do read these comments with much interest. I myself believe that the Sabbath still stands. God called the 7th day His day, and never the first. He never even hinted at the 1st day being a special day for Him.

What I do find interesting is that the ‘two law debate’ is always about one thing, that being the Sabbath. The attempt is always made to show that there is one body of law, just to prove that the Sabbath is abolished. It is like using an air gun to move a speck of dust.

No one has dealt with the point the Brette Elder has raised.

Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law, but Paul says that He abolished the law of commandments in ordinances.

Mat 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

vs

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;

Did the Bible writers understand that there was some distinction?

Claiming that the words “moral law” are never found in the Bible is true, but the same is true for the word “rapture”. We do have an understanding that we use terms that are comfortable for us in our understanding to refer to the things in the Bible, even though the terms themselves cannot be found in scripture.

But above all, why do we continue to bash the Sabbath and not marriage? Both were given in a perfect world before sin. They both are intimately connected in their meanings. If you can refuse the 7th day Sabbath -the day that God blessed and sanctified- then you have grounds to reject marriage as God gave it at creation.

Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

If the Sabbath day was blessed at creation, then every subsequent 7th day is a blessed day. God never changed this. And the only one who can change that is God. The 7th day Sabbth commandment was not given through an earthly vessel, but came from the mouth of God. Thus, only the mouth of God can reverse the command for the Sabbath. But we know God would never do such, as He never changes. Whereas, He gave the ‘law through a mediator’ for a time because of sin, the Sabbath command was given without a mediator and goes beyond sin

[Reply]

Clinton Chisholm Reply:
August 31st, 2010 at 11:52 am

Victor, my response is interspersed with your comment and begins with the word ‘REPLY’ in caps. AND EACH REPLY ENDS WITH ***********
I do read these comments with much interest. I myself believe that the Sabbath still stands. God called the 7th day His day, and never the first. He never even hinted at the 1st day being a special day for Him.

REPLY -If you read carefully Lev. 23.4 and following you would realize that the 1st day received prominence from God in that two of his feasts could only be celebrated as holy convocations or Sabbaths on the 1st day of the week (see v.11 and 15-17).
******************
What I do find interesting is that the ‘two law debate’ is always about one thing, that being the Sabbath. The attempt is always made to show that there is one body of law, just to prove that the Sabbath is abolished. It is like using an air gun to move a speck of dust.

No one has dealt with the point the Brette Elder has raised.

REPLY-I am not sure what this point really is.
******************

Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law, but Paul says that He abolished the law of commandments in ordinances.

Mat 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

vs

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;

REPLY -Matthew uses ‘law’ to mean not just the Ten Commandments but the whole Torah, the books of Moses. Indeed the expression ‘the law and the prophets’ in the New Testament, describes the whole Old Testament.

The idea of ‘fulfil’ relates to ‘satisfying the demands of ‘ and hints at what our Lord would accomplish on Calvary and in this regard John 19.28-30 is critical.

Though Sabbath-keepers do not seem to realize it, if the text is seen as arguing for the continuing validity of the law then it is every bit of the Law or old covenant that would be still binding since not one smallest part is to be removed!! There is no place for escape by neatly carving up the law into moral, ceremonial and civil and arguing that one part is now not binding, IT IS EVERY JOT OR TITTLE (=smallest part) OF THE WHOLE LAW OR NOTHING!

What is not appreciated when this text in Mt. 5 is cited is the time limitation expression ’till all is fulfilled’. This means that the Law, the Torah, would have validity until its purpose is realized. Once that purpose is realized then the whole Law would cease to be operative.
Re Eph. 2:13-15
V. 13 – in Christ Jesus, by the blood of Christ we were brought together
V. 14 – Jesus in his flesh (by his death) united Jew and Gentile, making them one, having destroyed, pulled down, broken up [Gk. luō], the barrier or the dividing wall. What was this barrier or dividing wall?
V. 15 – having nullified, cancelled, destroyed, abolished, done away with [Gk. katargeō] THE LAW WITH ITS COMMANDMENTS AND REGULATIONS. Why did God drop this bombshell? Same v.15, in order that he might unite to bring peace
******************

Did the Bible writers understand that there was some distinction?

Claiming that the words “moral law” are never found in the Bible is true, but the same is true for the word “rapture”. We do have an understanding that we use terms that are comfortable for us in our understanding to refer to the things in the Bible, even though the terms themselves cannot be found in scripture.

But above all, why do we continue to bash the Sabbath and not marriage? Both were given in a perfect world before sin. They both are intimately connected in their meanings. If you can refuse the 7th day Sabbath -the day that God blessed and sanctified- then you have grounds to reject marriage as God gave it at creation.

REPLY -Christians live by the New Covenant requirements found in the New Testament and marriage is encouraged in the words of Jesus in Mt. 19 and by Paul in 1 Cor. 7.
Sabbath as a commanded practice cannot be found in God’s rest at creation mentioned in Genesis. We must never confuse what is described in scripture with what is prescribed. Genesis 1 simply describes what happened at creation and mentions in Gen 2. 2-3 that God rested on the 7th day. The text nowhere says or suggests that God’s rest was prescribed for anybody else prior to Ex. 16.
****************************
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

If the Sabbath day was blessed at creation, then every subsequent 7th day is a blessed day. God never changed this. And the only one who can change that is God. The 7th day Sabbth commandment was not given through an earthly vessel, but came from the mouth of God. Thus, only the mouth of God can reverse the command for the Sabbath. But we know God would never do such, as He never changes. Whereas, He gave the ‘law through a mediator’ for a time because of sin, the Sabbath command was given without a mediator and goes beyond sin

REPLY -There is no textual support for your notion that “The 7th day Sabbth commandment was not given through an earthly vessel, but came from the mouth of God.” The noun Sabbath and its companion concept do not even appear anywhere in Genesis. Sabbath as a concept and commanded practice came from God through Moses for the first time in Ex. 16.
*****************************

[Reply]