Christian Sabbath?        

The Confession teaches that among the three branches of the Law, namely the moral law, the ceremonial laws, and the judiciary laws, both the ceremonial and judiciary have abrogated and expired; only the moral remains and is binding on all men until the end of the world[i].  Christians inevitably have to keep the Sabbath which is the 4^th command of the moral law.  However, this Sabbath is a Jewish custom and originally it has to be observed on the 6^th day. If we are to keep this Sabbath as it is in the original setting we would appear to be like a follower of Judaism or a Seventh Day Adventist. It is not good. So the Confession provides us a clever solution and says that God “hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath to be kept holy unto Him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week”[ii].  You see, the problem is solved and we can now keep the Sabbath and yet no need to worry about being mistaken as a follower of Judaism or Seventh Day Adventist. But the questions are, firstly, where the scriptures instruct the Christian believers to keep the Sabbath? We know clearly that the Lord had instructed the believers about believers’ baptism and about the Lord’s Supper. Secondly, which part of the Bible teaches us to observe “one day in seven for a Sabbath”? Thirdly, which part of the Bible teaches us to change the Sabbath from the 7^th day to the 1^th day? Well, the confession has provided various prove texts and so we have to study them carefully to find out the answer.

One day in seven for a Christian Sabbath?

This is the first text provided by the Confession. Moses recorded the creation story that, “And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made” (Gen.2.2-3). Moses’ record shows in no uncertain term that when God ended His work was on the seventh day according to the Jewish calendar.

Then Moses also recorded this, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, or your son, or your daughter, or your male servant, or your female servant, or your cattle, or your stranger who is within your gates.  For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it” (Ex.20.8-11). It was the first time the seventh day was named the Sabbath day and this seventh day was the same as the Genesis record.

Finally, we have this quote, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet.” (Rev.1.10) Why this text? Presumably the Confession views this Lord’s Day as the 1^st day of the week and regards it as the replacement of the seventh day Sabbath. But this interpretation has no support from the context. In the first place, we cannot be sure which day was the Lord’s Day. This is the only place in the entire Bible has this reference. We cannot build a convincing theory base on this verse alone.

All the prove texts provided by the Confession neither speak of a “one day in seven” theory nor supply any evidence to support it. So we have to conclude that a Sabbath is a Sabbath and it would never fall on any other day except on the seventh day.  

Christian Sabbath changed to the 1^st day of the week?

The Confession quoted this incident, “Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb” (Jn.20.1).This is a record of a woman disciple who was sad and eager to attend to the dead of body of Jesus after a day of rest. She neither remembered anything about Jesus would be resurrected on the third day after He was crucified, nor was she aware of the theological significance of the 1^st day to the believers today. The context does not suggest John’s intention was to convey such a change when he recorded the incident.

The second text indicates, “When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place” (Ac.2.1). The Confession presumes the Pentecost was celebrated on the 1^st day of the week that is on the Sunday. But festival has no fixed date and the people had to count to determine the day for the celebration. There were two versions of the counting to determine the day for the festival[iii]. The Sadducees celebrated the festival on the 1^st day of the week according to the “official counting”, but the festival fell on various day of the week according to counting of the Pharisees[iv].  The disciples were in Jerusalem to celebrate their first Pentecost as Christians after the resurrection of Jesus. They were there just like any other Jews except that they were told to wait in Jerusalem. They were not aware of what was going to happen to them on that day, let alone the idea of changing the Sabbath to the 1^st day of the week.

The third text says that, “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight” (Ac.20.7). This is a record of Paul’s mission itinerary. Two things we can learn from this text. First is that, on the 1^st day of the week the disciples came together to break bread and it was probably during the dinner or supper hour. Second, Paul spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. It was just a record of an incident and anything more than this information would be mere speculation.

The fourth text say that, “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come” (1 cor.16.1-2). This was Paul’s instruction on the collection for the saints. This was done on the 1^st day of the week. We are not informed the reason why it should be done on the 1^st day. We cannot take this piece information to suggest a change of day for the Sabbath has taken place.

The fifth text is taken from Revelation 1.10 and we have analyzed it earlier. The final text is from Colossians 2.16-17 “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ”. The Confession had established that the original Sabbath was abolished[v] to argue for a Christian Sabbath. This is a very bold statement but without any basis. This statement is ironical and self contradictory. The Confession has earlier established that the Lord Jesus did not abolish the moral law with the Sabbath as its 4^th commandment[vi]. But now the Confession seems to say the opposite by claiming that the original Sabbath has been abolished. We cannot treat the scripture in this manner. The context of Colossians chapter 2 does not allow us to that[vii]. We cannot sentence the original Sabbath to death by declaring its abolishment simply because we want to promote another day as Christian Sabbath.

All the prove texts provided here are a group of weak texts. They are records of events and incidents except the Colossians text. There is not a single direct instruction on the “Christian Sabbath”. It is rather artificial and arbitrary to push forward a theory of a Christian Sabbath without clear biblical evidences being provided.

Is there no direct instruction to observe the Sabbath?

The call to keep the Sabbath can be found throughout the Old Testament in a loud and clear manner. The Sabbath was fixed on the seventh day. Keeping the Sabbath on the seventh day was a fixture in the Jewish culture. What about the Christians? Is there not a call for the Christians to keep the Sabbath from the New Testament, so that we do not need to go round twisting the teaching of the New Testament to work out such a call?

The Confession believes that there is direct instruction on the Sabbath for the Christians. It teaches that, “The Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe a holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship and in the duties of necessity and mercy.”[viii]  It provides various Old and New Testaments passages as the prove texts. Among these texts only the texts from Matthew and its parallel in Mark appears to be related to the topic of “Christian Sabbath” and we shall examine it.

The Confession believes Jesus’ teaching on the Sabbath actually supports its proposition. It quotes, “At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!” But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?  Yet I say to you that in this place there is one greater than the temple.  But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice”, you would not have condemned the guiltless.  For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. Now when He had departed from there, He went into their synagogue.  And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—that they might accuse Him. Then He said to them, “What man is there among you who have one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” Then He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and it was restored as whole as the other.” (Mt.12.1-13; see also Mk.2.23-28).

Very obviously the principle of “the duties of necessity and mercy” is drawn from the record of the healing carried out by Jesus on the Sabbath and His comment on the saving of a sheep from the pit on the Sabbath. The Confession concludes that only such duties of necessity and mercy are permitted on the Christian Sabbath. This is a noble idea and no one would challenge its nobility. But on the grounds of exegesis and hermeneutic we would challenge its finding. This Christian duty of necessity and mercy is more of a premature application without careful study of the text. When this application becomes a fixed reformed idea and we will miss out what the Lord actually had spoken to the Jews.

The Lord definitely did not ask His followers to apply this duty of necessity and mercy on the Christian Sabbath. The Lord was not teaching about what is permitted on the Christian Sabbath. The Lord was talking about Himself being the Lord over the one and only Sabbath while rebuking the Pharisees about the highhanded manner in which they handled the people. He rebuked the Pharisees when He was challenged on the question of what was not lawful to do on the Sabbath. First of all, He rebuked them for failing to understand what God had said, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice”. He was unhappy with them for being merciless by using their narrow minded concept of the Sabbath to condemn the guiltless. Secondly, He rebuked them by quoting the examples of David and the priest in the temple, that the Sabbath was designed for man and not man for the Sabbath. This idea was an unheard of to the Jews. Finally, He rebuked them for failing to recognize Him as the Lord of the Sabbath. He told them that in this place there was one who was greater than the temple. He was the designer of the Sabbath and He held the key of interpretation. This was blasphemous to the Jewish ears. So this text is all about Christ Jesus being the Lord of the Sabbath and not about teaching the believers how to conduct themselves during the Sabbath, let alone changing the Jewish Sabbath into a Christian Sabbath. Our Lord hinted that the Pharisees’ view of the Sabbath focused wrongly on the day and the violations. Yet the Confession seems to follow the foot step of the Pharisees in interpreting the Sabbath.

We should look at the letter to the Hebrews 3-4, though it is not one of the references provided by the Confession. It is strange that the Confession did not include these two chapters in its study as it clearly talks about the Sabbath.

1.       Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion…. So I swore in my wrath, “They shall not enter my rest (katapausin mou)” (Heb.3.11).

2.       And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?” (3.18).

3.       Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it” (4.1)

4.       For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them….For we who have believed do enter the rest, as He has said, “So I swore in my wrath, “They shall not enter my rest”, although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way, “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works, and again I this place, “They shall not enter my rest” (4.2-5).

5.       There remains therefore a rest (sabbatismos i.e. Sabbath) for the people of God. For he has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. Let us therefore be diligent to enter the rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience (4.9-11).

First of all, the author of the letter highlighted two things, the one is “Today” as the opportune time for His people to respond to His calling and the other is the “rest” God offered to His people.  This letter to the Hebrews was probably appealing to the Jews, who were still holding on to the old institution of worship but yet to enter the rest that, they should not harden their hearts and slip into disbelief. They should instead exhort one another daily while it is called “Today”.  The letter reminded them that a rest was still available to the people of God and they should not miss the opportunity.

Secondly, the author employed two different words “katapausin” and “sabbatismos” togehter to refer to the salvation-rest.  By doing so, the author provides the 4^th commandment a new interpretation. The Jews would always see in the 4^th commandment their duties on the seventh day and nothing more. The Confession sees the same but only on the first day. But the author of Hebrews sees in the same commandment the gospel message of Christ Jesus. The call to keep the Sabbath is the call to enter into God’s rest and it means the salvation of God. This gospel-rest no longer emphasizes on how to avoid violating the complete rest command on the seventh day. The focus is now on the salvation-rest. Those who enter this rest will cease from his works or labors for salvation. Those who have entered the rest by their belief have fulfilled the demand of the 4^th commandment once and for all. They have entered the Sabbath and the Sabbath is about them, and they are the sabbatical people.

Conclusion:

1.       We conclude from the above study that the Confession as a piece of systematic doctrine is weak on exegesis with regard to the study of the Sabbath. It should not have divided the Law of Moses into moral law, ceremonial laws and judicial laws, and then declared the abrogation and expiry of the ceremonial and judicial laws. It should not have insisted on the perpetuity of the moral law and got itself trapped by the demand of the 4^th commandment.

2.       The doctrine of a Christian Sabbath either base on the principle of “one day in seven” or “a change from the 7^th day to the 1^st day of the week” is unfounded. There is no biblical evidence to support this proposition. It is fine that we set aside one day for public worship, but for the sake of the gospel, do not call it the Christian Sabbath. We cannot go back to observing a Christian Sabbath with all its duties, after having entered our salvation-rest. Just as we cannot return to keeping the Passover meal after having celebrated the Lord’ Supper. Similarly we cannot revert back to circumcision after having been received Christ Jesus as our Lord. All these were customs of Moses and they contradict the gospel of our Lord.

3.       It should not have left out chapters 2 & 3 of the letter to the Hebrews. Actually, any study on the Sabbath would be incomplete without the inclusion of these two chapters. Only if it had done a careful study on these texts it would have found the answer to the demand of the 4^th commandment.

4.       It should approach the Sabbath from the gospel point of view. The “rest” and the Sabbath is a gospel message. The Sabbath is about us the Christians and not about the duties on a selected day. We are far more important in God’s eyes than the day and its duties. We are a sabbatical people because of this salvation-rest. We are not limited to observe our “rest” on one selected day. We celebrate our “rest” every day and for the rest of our lives.

---

[i] The Confession, chapter 19, articles 1-5

[ii] ibid, chapter 22, article 7

[iii] Lev.23.9-25

[iv] The New Bible Dictionary, “Feast of Pentecost”, p.964

[v] Ibid, article 7

[vi] Ibid, chapter 19, article 5

[vii] See my exegesis on the Colossians chapter 2 in another article “Christian laws?”

[viii] Ibid, article 8

Christian Law?

Many Christians are undecided as what to do with the Law that is found in the five books of Moses. This Law was given to Moses for the Israelites and subsequently was known as the Law of Moses[i].  How is this Law related to the Christian believers? Christians are divided over this question. Answers to this question vary from people to people with different conviction.  Some say that this Law of Moses is applicable to the Christians and some say that it is not applicable.  The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith has an answer of its own. First of all, it divides the Law of Moses into the moral law (the 10 Commandments), the ceremonial laws, and the judicial laws[ii]. Then, it indicates that this moral law was first written in Adam’s heart and continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall of Adam, and eventually to Moses in the form of 10 Commandments. Finally, it concludes that it is binding on all men until the end of the world, both those who have been justified by God and those who have not been justified by God[iii].

This conclusion is genius, because it does not only provide an answer for the Christian believers to keep the Law of Moses, but it also enable the believers to avoid the tough sections of the “ceremonial and judicial laws” by concentrating only on the moral law. The “ceremonial and judicial laws” are tough because they contain the calling of religious war[iv] and archaic capital punishment and some severe criminal punishments[v]  which are abhorrent to the modern society. Christians definitely cannot be associated with such laws. However, this approach to the Law of Moses raises two problems. Firstly, how a simple command given to Adam can be interpreted as “a law of universal obedience” and how can this same command “continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after Adam sinned”? Secondly, why we have the liberty to divide and subdivide the Law and then throw away what we feel might embarrass us and keep those that are save to handle.

How the Scripture views the Law of Moses?

The proposition to divide the Law of Moses into three branches of laws is not new.  It was probably taught way before the Reformation period. The reformed believers and evangelicals today have simply adopted it as theirs and accepted it as the right approach in handling the Law. This has become a norm and nobody bothers or dares to ask any question. This attitude has violates the reformed principle of “sola scriptura” and hinders the progress in the hermeneutical and exegetical study of the scripture.  We cannot prolong this violation and so we have to search the scripture to find out the answer.

First and foremost, let us look at this “law of universal obedience written in his heart”[vi] within the given context. Bear in mind that a text without its context is only a prove text for a pretext. God commanded Adam in the Garden of Eden, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen.2.16-17). This command was given specifically to Adam about not to eat the fruit of knowledge and it was broken and removed the moment Adam disobeyed it. The access to the tree was subsequently sealed. The command was not meant to be repeated at any time in human history once death entered into the realm of human life. The context of the command does not suggest a moral law and a sense of perpetuity as a law that would later tie up with the 10 Commandments. There is a difference between the two. The command to Adam, who knew no death, came with the punishment of death. Whereas the 10 Commandments given to Israel, who knew no immortality, with a curse should they break the covenant. This proposition of “a law of universal obedience” is not based on straightforward exegesis. It is more like a pretext being pressed into the text.

It is very clear that “a law of universal obedience” was not intended when Moses jolted down Adam’s disobedience. Instead a clear message of the entrance of death into the realm of human life by his disobedience was intended. Ever since then, disobedience has ruled the hearts of men and death has over powered the life of men. Paul observed correctly when he said, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus 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 to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come” (Rom.5.12-14). It is definitely a message about the principle of universal disobedience and beginning of death. The confession should have approached this particular doctrine from this angle and it would have been in agreement with the gospel.

The confession also quoted this short passage, “Truly, this only I have found; that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes” (Eccl. 7.29). How does this verse support the proposition of “a law of universal obedience”? Presumably, according to the Confession, God has created every man “upright” (with the law of universal obedience written in their hearts), but they have turned away from God.

We need to answer some questions before we can be clear about what the Preacher had observed. Is the “man” (Adam) in the rhetoric refers to Adam In the creation record or refers to the whole of mankind? Most would interpret the “man” (Adam) together with the pronoun (they) as to refer to the whole mankind. But this interpretation does not fit in well with the context. Or could it be that the “man” (Adam) and those who “sought out many schemes” are two different groups of people. Bear in mind that, the book of Ecclesiastes is a piece of paradoxical rhetoric or rhetoric of contrast. The preacher expresses his observation of everything under the sun by paradoxical ideas. To the Preacher, a good name is better than precious ointment, and the day of one’s death is better than the day of one’s birth. To him, it is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, because sorrow is better than laughter. Looking at the sentence from this angle, the Preacher’s discovery would fit in well to the context of a paradoxical rhetoric. His discovery then can be expressed in a paradox between the “man” who was made upright and “those who sought out many schemes”.

Besides that, the word “upright” (yashar) is applied specifically to the man of faith, or to the man who knew God, or the man who was blameless. Job was such a man and he was “blameless and upright (yashar), and one who feared God and shun evil (Job 1.1; 8). An upright person is not associated with evil. Similarly, when Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him and He said to him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit” (Jn.1.47). It is either black or white, and there is no grey area. Presuming the act of “seeking out many schemes” was evil and naturally it cannot be associated with the upright.

Arm with this information we can now interpret the Preacher’s discovery. Most probably he has discovered that it was God who made man upright, but there were those who sought out evil schemes. God did not make everyone upright but only some. The rest remain in their evil way. If God has only made His faithful upright, then we cannot say that there is a law of universal obedience being the perfect rule of righteousness over everyone.

The Confession has the third prove text, “For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law….for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them” (Rom.2.12a, 14-15) Paul, from the beginning of his letter to the Romans, has established three important truths. The first one is that in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith and the second is that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (Rom.1.17-32). The third truth is that there is no partiality with God and He will judge everyone by Christ Jesus according to the gospel. God will render to each one according to his deeds; eternal life to those who obey the truth, but condemnation to those who are self seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness (2.6-16).

The prove text quoted by the Confession falls within the context of this third truth. The rule of thumb in interpreting the word “law” in the letter to the Romans is to regard it as the Law of Moses when no qualification is given and we have to interpret it differently when it is qualified. The word “law” is used seven times in this short sentence. Only two of them are qualified, while the other five are not qualified and can be positively confirmed as the Law of Moses.

 Paul pointed out that, the conduct of the Gentiles shows two things. Firstly, it shows that they do have a law to themselves. This “law” is qualified by “to themselves” and so it cannot be interpreted as a written law code. It should be the knowledge of right and wrong influences by their moral awareness of right and wrong and religious affiliation and obligations. This knowledge appears to be in agreement with the Law in a certain way. It is this knowledge that guides their conduct and in turn their conduct reflects the existence of this knowledge.

Secondly, their conduct also shows there is this “work of the law written in their hearts”.  The “law” here is the same knowledge of right and wrong, and it qualifies the “work”. We need to understand two things to continue our interpretation. Firstly, what is this “written their hearts”? Usually, it is a good thing when the law is written in men’s heart and not on the stone, and it means God is showing mercy by changing the heart and mind of a rebellious people so that they may come back to Him[vii]. But in the present context it is about the Gentiles facing God’s judgment. It is not something to be happy about. It indicates a condition in which they are trapped and cannot argue their way out.

Then, what is this “work” of the law? Is it good or bad? It has to be bad since it is written in the hearts in the context of judgment. It occurs only once in Romans in its singular form. In its plural form, works of the Law is the opposite of faith. Paul declares that man is justified by faith but the Jews sought to establish their righteousness by works of the Law. Works of the Law is basically self seeking and disobey the gospel truth and obey unrighteousness. If the singular form is referring to the same thing, then whatever is found in the hearts of the Gentiles is the same desire that want to establish their righteousness rather than seeking God’s. Their conduct proves that the work of the law is in them and their conscience confirms it. This work of the law would place the Gentiles in the same condition with the Jews because they both prefer to seek their own righteousness instead of God’s.

We can summarize the study now. Firstly, the command given to Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge was very specific in its context. It has a specific message and the message was about how one man’s disobedience that brought about sin and disobedience and death to all men. Secondly, the text from Ecclesiastes also proved to be inappropriate for the purpose. The Preacher did not say that God had created man with a moral law stuffed in their hearts. Instead he was making a distinction between man who was made upright and man who sought out their own schemes. Thirdly, the text from the letter to the Romans speaks of a different issue. It stated the fact that the Gentiles who do not have the Law would perish without it. It reminded the Gentiles that though they may not have the Law, but their conduct that agrees with some of the demands of the Law shows that they do have a law of their own, and further more the work of the law is written in their hearts. Their conscience also confirms that this work of the law is in them. It is obvious that all the three prove texts do not say anything about a moral law. There is no evidence that supports the doctrine of a law of universal obedience.

Secondly, the Confession stated that the ceremonial laws were abrogated and taken away[viii] and the judicial laws were expired together with the state of that people[ix], and only “the moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others.”[x] The question is do we have the liberty to divide and sub-divide the Law of Moses and keep what we like and throw away what we do not like? To answer this question we will first of all examine the prove texts provided by the Confession, and then we will find out how the scripture views this Law of Moses.

Have the ceremonial laws abrogated?

The Confession quoted these sayings, “having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross ….. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. (Col.2.14, 16-17); and “For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,  having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,  and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity” (Eph.2. 14-16). It is indeed very interesting to know that the Confession regards “the handwriting of requirements” and “the law of commandments” as refer to the ceremonial laws.

Let us look at the first prove text. There are various reasons why “the handwriting of requirements” should not be interpreted as the ceremonial laws (or as the Law of Moses) in the Colossians text. Firstly, the Law cannot be divided in this manner and then let the ceremonial laws be abrogated on the cross. Secondly, the Law (even the ceremonial laws) only magnifies and confirms sinners’ quilt and reminds the believers the activities of the remaining sins in their bodies, but against and contrary to the believers is not part of its designated function. Besides that, the works of the Law opposes the gospel as a system of justification, but never opposes the believers. Thirdly, Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law but never mentioned that He came to abolish it by nailing it to the cross.

Paul was concerned that the believers in Colossae would be misled to do silly things. He warned them four times that they should not be deceived by persuasive words, or cheated by human philosophy and empty deceit, or judged by anyone, or cheated of their reward. All these could happen to them if they did not know what Christ had done for them. Paul told them that they were complete in Christ and they were circumcised and baptized in Christ. And Christ had made them alive with Him, after having forgiven them all trespasses, and having wiped out the handwriting of requirements and nailed it on the cross, and having disarmed principalities and powers.

The text shows that, “the handwriting of requirement” is placed side by side with “all trespasses” and “principalities and powers”. These three are closely associated with one another. These three, Christ Jesus had defeated before He made the believers alive. We know that the trespasses that have been forgiven by itself could not go against or contrary to the believers. We also know that the Devil and his armies (the principalities and powers) would accuse the believers until the end of the world and the only ground for them to accuse the believers would be their previous trespasses.

As the context suggest, it is more accurate to interpret the “handwriting” as an accounting book where all the previous sins were recorded. Christ Jesus had destroyed it when forgiveness is granted and before He made alive the believers. Paul noted in a similar effect but in a different way that, Christ Jesus “whom God set forth as propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed” (Rom.3.25).

Then on the second prove text, we must read carefully that Paul did not say Jesus had abolished “the law of commandments contained in ordinances” in His flesh. What Jesus had abolished was the enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles, in order to break down the middle wall of separation and to make a new man from the two and establish peace between the two, and reconcile this new man to God. What actually had created this enmity? It was not the ceremonial laws and it has no such power to cause the enmity. It was the Law of Moses which was the foundation of the Jewish race and nation and the institution of worship that the Jewish people took pride. Yet it was not the Law was abolished but the pride and arrogance resulted from the possession of the Law. It was the near arrogant confidence of the Jews on their religious culture. It was exactly this attitude of confidence and arrogance that caused enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles. Everywhere the Jews went they despised the Gentiles and in return they were hated by the Gentiles. Even a Gentile who wishes to come to God must become a proselyte. But when the gospel of Christ Jesus arrived everything was different, “since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith, and the uncircumcised through faith” (Rom.3.30).

Have the judicial laws expired?

The Confession has provided a list of prove texts (Lk.21-20-24; Acts 6.13-14; Heb.9.18-19; 8.7, 13; 9.10; 10.1) but unfortunately they are irrelevant to the issue at hand. The texts from Hebrew may be the closest we can get.  But on closer examination, they were talking about the first covenant and the new covenant and not about the judicial laws and its expiry. Then it also explains on the nature of the Law and says that it has “a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things….can never…make those who approach perfect” (Heb.10.1). It is about the Law of Moses and not the judicial laws that the author of Hebrews had in mind.

So we conclude that, the division of a moral law, the ceremonial laws and the judicial laws as proposed by the Confession does not have any support from the prove texts it has provided. The prove texts also do not support the idea of abrogation and expiry of the ceremonial laws and judicial laws, while a moral law continued to be binding on all men.

Now we shall look at some texts selected from different sections of the Old and New Testaments. These are straight forward passages and we can understand them easily how they view the Law of Moses is.

The Old Testaments records:

1.       After Moses had passed away, the Lord spoke to Joshua, “Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law which Moses my servant commanded you, do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left that you may prosper wherever you go. This book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.” (Josh.1.7-8)

2.       Then Joshua built on Mount Ebal an altar to the LORD, the God of Israel, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded the Israelites. He built it according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses—an altar of uncut stones, on which no iron tool had been used. On it they offered to the LORD burnt offerings and sacrificed fellowship offerings. There, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua wrote on stones a copy of the Law of Moses.  All the Israelites, with their elders, officials and judges, were standing on both sides of the ark of the covenant of the LORD, facing the Levitical priests who carried it. Both the foreigners living among them and the native-born were there. Half of the people stood in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the LORD had formerly commanded when he gave instructions to bless the people of Israel. Afterward, Joshua read all the words of the law—the blessings and the curses—just as it is written in the Book of the Law.  There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded that Joshua did not read to the whole assembly of Israel, including the women and children, and the foreigners who lived among them. (Josh. 8.30-35)

3.       David gave his parting words to Solomon before he passed away saying, “I go the way of all the earth, be strong, therefore, and prove yourself a man. And keep the charge of the Lord your God, and to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His judgments,, and His testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn.” (1 Kings 2.3)

4.       Then Jeshua the son of Jozadak^[a] and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and his brethren, arose and built the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings on it, as it is written in the Law of Moses the man of God. (Ezra 3.2)

5.       And they stood up in their place and read from the Book of the Law of the LORD their God for one-fourth of the day; and for another fourth they confessed and worshiped the LORD their God. (Neh.9.3)

6.       You came down also on Mount Sinai, and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them just ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments. You made known to them your holy Sabbath, and commanded them the precepts, statutes and laws, by the hand of Moses your servant. (Neh.9. 13-14)

7.       The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul;
         The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;
  The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
         The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;
 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever;
         The judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. (Ps.19.7-9)

8.       The earth is also defiled under its inhabitants, 
      because they have transgressed the laws, 
      Changed the ordinance, 
      Broken the everlasting covenant. (Is.24.5)

The New Testament records:

1.       Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.  For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.  Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mt.5.17-19)

2.       And by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses. (Ac.13.39)

3.       For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified. (Rom.2.12-13)

4.       For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.”  Is it oxen God is concerned about? (1 Cor. 9.9)

5.       If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well. (James 2.8)

6.       For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.  For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.”Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.  So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. (James 2.10-12)

We can observe from these records that the scripture regards the Law of Moses as a complete unit. Though it contains God’s commandments, laws, statutes, ordinances, but they are not divided. Definitely the scripture does not divide the Law into moral law, ceremonial laws and judiciary laws. It definitely does not give the impression at all that while one section of the Law would be expired and another section would remain and bind all men under its authority. It is a foreign idea to the scripture.

What is the Law of Moses to the Christians?

We can now shake off the old norm and approach the Law afresh from the gospel point of view. We will treat the Law of Moses as the Law of Moses. We should approach the Law with the following points:

1.       The Law of Moses was the legal document for the nation of Israel from Moses till the Dispersion. There were moments when this Law was disregarded by the palace administration before the Dispersion[xi].The Law was revived as the legal constitution of the autonomous state when the Jews returned to the land under King Cyrus, and it continued to be so through the Greek Empire and the Roman Empire. Then the Jewish people rebelled against the Romans in the 70 AD and were defeated and eventually dispersed from Palestine. The Law ceased to be the legal document for Israel as long as Israel ceased to be a nation or an autonomous state. Ironically, today there is a new nation Israel occupies the land in Palestine but the Law is no longer referred to as the national legal document.  The Law of Moses as the legal document for the old Israel is history.

2.       But this Law of Moses was also a document of spiritual message from the first day. The Jews were aware of this spiritual message beneath the Law. The Jews have over the centuries developed a theology of justification based on the Law. The gospel calls it a theology of justification by works of the Law. This was the theology that opposes the gospel message of justification by faith.

3.       The Confession is aware that the spiritual message and not the legal document that is relevant to the Christians. It has done its best to separate the spiritual from the legal by dividing it into three branches of laws. But its interpretation is not in line with the gospel.

4.       The gospel has reinterpreted the Law and drawn out the spiritual message for us. We have to approach it from the gospel point of view. We have to drop the framework of interpretation provided by the Confession. We cannot divide the Law into three branches and claim that God only retains the moral law and has abolished the other two. Both the Old and New Testaments view the Law as a complete unit and so we have to do the same. We have to discover the spiritual message from the Law as a whole.

5.       Now, this is the two prongs message from the gospel:

·         The Law was established when the Jews (and the Gentiles) believed in the gospel[xii]. Because sin has spread to all men and death was the chief evidence of their sin. But sin was not known as sin until God has assigned the Law to define sin as sin. God has also assigned the Law to the Jews as their tutor and guardian until faith came. God then used the knowledge of the Law to remind them about the destructive activities of the remaining sins in their bodies[xiii]. God did not design the Law to be the basis of justification or to set them free form sin and death, but He intended that “the just shall live by faith”. So when they believed in the gospel they confirmed the spiritual function of the Law as designed by God was true.

·         The spiritual demand of the Law was fulfilled when the believers lived a life in the Spirit[xiv]. A life in the Spirit is a life of love. Love is the labor of the Spirit and ultimately the Holy Spirit would fulfill the spiritual demand of the Law[xv]. The Jews knew very well that the good way to understand the Law was to summarize it with “love”[xvi].  But the idea about love fulfills the Law puzzled them. They could not grasp what has this “love” to do with the demands of the Law. Paul explained that, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor un-circumcision avails anything, but faith working through love”[xvii]. Again he stressed that, “For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.  For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”[xviii]. Paul applied this truth in a very lively manner when he told the believers in Rome “Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.  For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law”[xix]. Peter also reminded the believers that, “Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart”[xx].

---

[i] Joshua 8.31, 1 Kings 2.3

[ii] Confession, chapter 19, Of the law of God

[iii] ibid, articles 1,2, & 5

[iv] e.g. Dt.20.16-18

[v] see Num.25; Lev.20.2, 27; 24.16

[vi] ibid, chapter 19,article 1

[vii] Jer.31.33; Heb.8.10 & 10.16

[viii] ibid, article 3

[ix] ibid, article 4

[x] Ibid article 5

[xi] 2 Kings 22.8 in the context of chapters 22-23

[xii] Rom.3.31

[xiii] Rom.7

[xiv] Rom.8.4 in the context of chapter 8

[xv] Gal.5.22-23

[xvi] Mt.22.37; Mk.12.30; Lk.10.27; Dt.6.5; Lev.19.18

[xvii] Gal.5.6

[xviii] Gal.5.13-14

[xix][xix] Rom.13.8-10

[xx] 1 Pet.1.22; see also James 2.8