Why Sunday

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

I agree. I believe the old covenant with Israel has vanished away.

Brother, we finally agree on something!!

Umm. You do realize that tithing is part of that old covenant that vanished away?

[Esaias]

Some people are on a boat, on a cruise. They shipwreck on a deserted tropical island. They realise they are going to be there for awhile, so they decide to get organised. They vote on an agreement to govern how they are going to live. This agreement includes laws, like "no stealing" and "no murder".

Question: Did they invent ex nihilo (out of nothing) "no stealing" and "no murder"? They made a social compact, and passed legislation, but what exactly happened? The laws they passed, was the CONTENT of those laws utterly nonexistent prior to them passing the legislation?

Or was "no stealing" and "no murder" already a pre-existing moral law, regardless of whether it was codified in any formal legislation?

When God made a covenant with Israel, He gave them His laws. His laws were already in existence, they are moral law, they are a part of His moral character and His will for mankind. The codification of those laws as part of a covenant with a nation does not mean those laws popped into existence ex nihilo. The codified legislation came into existence when the legislation was passed, but the CONTENT of those laws had always been around. This is easily seen by simply asking "Was murder wrong prior to the giving of the Ten Commandments at Mt Sinai?"

Now, the covenant with Israel included certain things specific to that covenant, and to that nation. For example, that a tabernacle was to be built, that all sacrifice was to take place only at the tabernacle, that the liturgical service was allotted to the tribe of Levi exclusively, and similar such things. The allotments of Canaan by tribe is obviously exclusive to that nation at that time. But most of those exclusivities can be clearly discerned, they are self evident. They require certain conditions in order to be practiced. There must be a verifiable tribe of Levi, and verifiable house of Aaron, and legitimate Tabernacle/Temple, etc. Without those conditions, those particular ordinances cannot be obeyed try as anyone might.

But the universal moral law is different. It pre-exists any formal codification or "giving of the law". Moral law derives its existence from the fact that people exist. Moral law is the law that governs moral agents.

All law is either physical (or "natural") law, or moral law. Physical law is the law of necessity. Gravity, the laws governing the motions of the stars and planets and electrons and neutrons, inertia, thermodynamics, etc are all examples of physical law. With humans, physical law governs such things as perception: if the faculty or senses are operating and the mind is working, then an object entering the senses is necessarily perceived. The intellect is governed by laws of necessity, as for example if you think a thought you naturally perceive that you have thought that thought. It is a natural or physical law of necessity that one should (normally) perceive eating as a positive and satisfying solution to hunger. I say normally because other things are also in operation, such that if the emotions are suppressed (as in sadness or melancholy) the appetite may be suppressed, and food may not appear to be positive and pleasurable. But these things are governed by the law of necessity, they are not simply choices. You do not simply choose to enjoy good food, it simply gets interpreted by your brain as a positive pleasurable satisfying thing.

Moral law however is NOT the law of necessity, but the law of choice. It is the law that governs moral agents. It is the rule of conduct, designed to direct and guide actions (choices). It is obligation, that moral agents ought to do certain things. It is not physical or a law of necessity, because moral law does not operate automatically to produce its intended effect, whereas physical law necessarily produces its effect. Gravity operates regardless of anyone's desires, unless God himself intervenes to suspend that law. The laws of logic are similar, in that what one chooses is irrelevant to whether or not a conclusion follows from certain premises. But moral law does not automatically produce the intended effect, because it requires the subject to voluntarily submit to it.

That you ought not to murder does not in itself cause you to not murder, you have to agree with the law, value it as the correct course of action, choose to follow its command. Otherwise, there could not possibly be any murder, all that is required is for moral law to exist saying "thou shalt not murder" and no murder could ever possibly happen. But that is not how it actually is, murders do happen, because thou shalt not murder is not a physical or natural law of necessity but a moral law governing free agents.

Moral law comes into existence the moment free agents come into existence. God is a free agent, therefore there has ALWAYS been moral law. God has ALWAYS "ought" to do certain things. If this were not the case then God is not a moral agent and can never be truthfully called "good" or "righteous". But God is good, and righteous, and therefore a moral agent. As a moral agent, he is subject to moral law, He has moral obligations.

This moral law arises from His very nature and existence, rather than from His arbitrary will. What is right is right because it is right, not simply because God wants it to be right. Moral obligation does not arise simply from the arbitrary will of God, but from the nature of relations between existing things, as a consequence of the Divine nature itself. God is love, therefore it is a moral obligation for God to love, and once humans exist it becomes a moral obligation for them to love both God and each other as well. We are not obligated to love simply because God SAID so. Rather, the obligation to love arises because of the existence of things that bear a certain relationship to one another. Moral law arises from the relations of things (including people) and not from the mere will of any being, including God. Otherwise, God could arbitrarily change everything and declare that adultery and murder and theft are good and holy and that failure to commit such things is sinful and wrong. Yet even if God spoke from heaven and said "Thou shalt steal from thy neighbour all thou canst", theft would still be wrong. The only thing that would change would be God's moral character, from one of goodness and holiness to one of evil and badness and unrighteousness. Thankfully, God is in no danger of changing His mind about obeying the moral law that derives from His very essence and nature.

This is proven here:

And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
(Genesis 18:23-25)

Abraham understood God himself was a subject of moral obligation, that even God's actions could be measured against a standard of righteousness. And God acknowledged Abraham's argumentation as correct.

So when God makes a covenant with Israel, and gives them His laws, commandments, statutes, judgments, and ordinances, He is not merely inventing moral law right then and there, as if it never had existed and wasn't always obligatory and binding. He was TEACHING ISRAEL HIS WAYS. When you teach your child that lying and stealing are wrong, you did not just then invent the moral obligation to not lie and not steal. Rather, you are simply teaching your children existing moral precepts by codifying them as "rules of the house".

The fact the covenant and the ten commandments are used interchangeably as terms for one another does not mean the CONTENT OF THE LAWS are wholly and completely synonymous with the COVENANT upon which they are based. If America dissolved from nuclear war, and only a handful of survivors remained, murder and theft would not suddenly cease to be wrong because the government is gone, or because the social compact ("covenant") was dissolved. As long as there is a God and there are humans, as long as there are moral agents, moral law is in place and in force and obligation exists.

[Esaias]

(part2)

The question arises, "Which parts of God's law are codified universal moral law, and which are specific to a specific people at a specific time and place?" The specific law or particular law, as opposed to the universal law, is still moral law, because those specifically obligated to it are in fact obligated. Thus, there is no difference between "moral law" and "civil law" and "ceremonial law", rather there is simply "universal moral law" and "particular moral law". Universal moral law applies to and obligates everyone everywhere at all times. Particular moral law applies to and obligates everyone who fits the particular circumstances of the particular law.

For example, the universal moral law prohibits idolatry. Particular moral law prohibits those under a Nazarite vow from drinking wine and from certain other actions.

One thing that can be easily discerned is that all particular moral law is a species of universal moral law, meaning that particular laws governing particular people at particular times under particular circumstances are really derived from higher, universal moral laws. In the example above, the Nazarite has taken a vow, and must obey the terms of that vow. That means the third commandment must be obeyed. The particulars of the vow may not be universal to all people all the time, but those particulars are rooted in the universal moral obligation to have respect unto God and to fulfill one's vows. And that includes the fact that God has the authority to establish the particulars.

God's laws as codified in the old covenant are simply universal and particular moral laws given to the people in order to teach them how to function and live and behave and relate to one another and to God. Particular laws that depend on particular circumstances obviously are not obligatory to others that are not those particular people under those particular circumstances. Howbeit, since those particulars are rooted in universal moral law, it follows that universally applicable principles can be derived from the particular laws. In other words, some of God's laws you can obey as written. Others, that depend on certain now-not-existing circumstances, can reveal principles so that the goal of the particular law can still be realised.

A perfect example of this pertains to the burnt offerings. It is impossible to offer burnt offerings anymore in an acceptable manner, as there is no Temple, no altar, no Aaronic priesthood. The covenant itself which codified those particulars no longer exists. But the principle can be seen, that God is pleased with us offering valuable things entirely to God. Thus, "present your bodies as a living sacrifice unto God". That is, the most valuable thing we have, our very lives, is to be offered as if it were a whole burnt offering, a sweet smelling savour to God.

The child of God desires to do the will of God. This is the essence of genuine conversion. Nobody who doesn't desire to do the will of God has any evidence they are at all converted or a Christian. The essence of the change from the old covenant to the new is that "burnt offering" has been replaced with "I come to do Thy will, O God" (Heb 10:6-9). That is, mere outward religious liturgical activities have been replaced by a new covenant focused on actually DOING the will of God. That is, actual obedience to moral law has replaced mere liturgical worship.

What was the purpose of God codifying His laws, commandments, statutes, and judgments as a covenant with a written legal code, given to Israel? The answer is found plainly stated in the Scripture:

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
(Deuteronomy 4:5-8)

Israel was to be a light unto the nations, to provoke the nations to jealousy, that is, to inspire the nations to imitate Israel, to recognise that God's law is the most righteous thing since sliced bread. The nations were supposed to learn from Israel how to live for God, how to live in relation to God and to their neighbour.

The problem was the people weren't actually willing to submit to moral law. Remember, moral law is not a law of necessity, it does not automatically ipso facto produce obedience, like physical or natural law does. The people were unwilling to actually obey God. The weakness of the old covenant, indeed of all moral law, is NOT in the covenant or the law, but in the flesh, the people subject to either the covenant or the moral law. Moral law does not produce obedience, something else is needed to motivate people to obey God.

That something else is provided through the cross of Jesus Christ. A true recognition of what the cross entails, that is, what the voluntary death of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice for one's sins entails, is designed by God to produce divinely empowered ("spiritual") motivation to love God and thus to obey God and His moral laws:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
(Romans 8:3-4)

Many people think that God previously had a bunch of laws that had to be obeyed, but then sent Jesus to free us from the obligation to obey those "old testament laws". Such thinking could not be further from the truth! Jesus came and died to produce genuine obedience from the heart, out of love to God and our neighbour. He came to save His people FROM their sins, not save them to continue in their sins. This can mean nothing less than that He came to cause his people to STOP TRANSGRESSING HIS LAWS and to produce OBEDIENCE FROM THE HEART to His laws.

And His laws include the 4th commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." If you love God, why wouldn't you love what He loves? Why wouldn't you love that which belongs to Him? God blessed the seventh day long before any Israelite walked the earth, He sanctified that day, hallowed it, made it SPECIAL AND DEDICATED TO HIMSELF. So as His child, wouldn't you desire to honour him and remember His special day?

In any event, the moral laws of God (how men ought to relate to God and to each other) were codified in the Sinaitic covenant. They weren't invented at Sinai, they were simply delivered to the people as the good old way they were to live, as a light to the nations.

[Esaias]

(part3)

The people however repeatedly broke the laws of God, breaking the covenant they had with him. Eventually, God announced He was doing away with that covenant:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
(Jeremiah 31:31-33)

A common error that people have is a view that says "Back in the old testament God had a covenant with the Jews, based on laws and obligations, but He did away with that because it basically sucks, and instead made a new covenant with everybody based on believing Jesus, freeing everyone from any old testament obligations." This is exactly what an unconverted sinner would be expected to believe, to find a way to soothe their conscience, give them false hope, while allowing them to keep some of their sins. A perfect lie of the devil.

The truth is, God said Judah and Israel broke his covenant, so He's going to make a new one. It won't be like the one He made in Exodus, where His laws were written on tables of stone, and in a book, in their ears but not their hearts. Instead, He would write His laws in their hearts and minds (thus producing actual obedience). This way He would really and truly be their God. He wouldn't just be their God because of some formal legal obligations entered into at Sinai, but He would be their God in a real sense, because His laws would be in their minds and their hearts.

He doesn't say He will make up new laws, or that He will get rid of His "old laws". The change is not the laws, but the COVENANT. Under the old covenant, the laws of God were written on stone, parchment, papyrus, spoken with the mouth, heard with the ears. But apparently they did not enter the people's hearts, as proven by their continual backsliding, sinning, and eventual captivities. He says this new covenant will involve genuine obedience to His laws. This promise is echoed in Ezekiel, in regards to the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost:

And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
(Ezekiel 11:19-20)

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
(Ezekiel 36:26-27)

The giving of the Spirit, the receiving of a "new heart", a circumcised heart, is the essence of the new covenant. Yet it produces a result that the old covenant could not produce: it produces actual obedience to the laws of God.

Consider these two passages:

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
(Deuteronomy 30:6)

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
(Romans 2:28-29)

What is this heart circumcision? It results in loving God with all the heart and soul, it is an inward circumcision, "in the spirit and not in the letter". Does this heart circumcision result in a divinely blessed disposal and abrogation and disobedience to the laws of God? Let Paul himself answer:

For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
(Romans 2:24-29)

Heart circumcision is a term for genuine obedience to "the righteousness of the law", not a disposal and doing away with "pesky old testament rules". Notice the term he used: "fulfill the law". Jesus said He did not come to destroy but to fulfill the law. Many take this to mean either that Jesus obeyed so now we don't have to obey, or else that Jesus changed the law to a "higher spiritual meaning" so that we don't have to obey what was actually written. Either way, they give lip service to Jesus not destroying the law but in actuality they have Jesus doing exactly that.

But Paul explains "fulfill the law" as "keep the righteousness of the law". Israel was breaking God's covenant, by breaking His law, that is, not actually keeping the righteousness described by the law. So Jesus arrives and announces He is there to do what God had wanted folks to do all along: fulfill the law. Thus, Jesus was "without sin" and always did what was pleasing to the Father. That is, He did the will of God, He fulfilled his moral obligation, He obeyed the laws of God.

And Paul says the true circumcision, that is, the true work of regeneration and genuine conversion, true CHRISTIANITY, involves the inward from the heart obedience to the laws of God by the influences of the Holy Ghost, which takes the cross of Jesus and applies it to the sinner, providing both pardon of sin and power to obey:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
(Romans 8:3-9)

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
(Philippians 2:12-13)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Let me try to sum up positions, please correct my errors.



*Brother Esaias believes that the mosaic moral law is in full effect, only the ceremonial law and sacrificial system have been fulfilled in Christ, and advocates Sabbath keeping and a return to mosaic legislation.

I believe the divine moral law is and always has been in effect. The sinaitic covenant as a system of administration of God's moral laws, commandments, statutes, and judgments has been broken by Israel, so God made a new covenant with Israel where His laws, commandments, statutes, and judgments are written in the heart of His people by the Holy Ghost. I advocate that all men live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. In other words, I advocate that everyone should love Jesus and obey the Bible.

[Amanah]

Thank you Brother Esaias, beautifully written.
Very understandable and enlightening

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I believe the divine moral law is and always has been in effect. The sinaitic covenant as a system of administration of God's moral laws, commandments, statutes, and judgments has been broken by Israel, so God made a new covenant with Israel where His laws, commandments, statutes, and judgments are written in the heart of His people by the Holy Ghost. I advocate that all men live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. In other words, I advocate that everyone should love Jesus and obey the Bible.

[Amanah]

See, this is why Bro Benincasa and I stay here, because we admire Brother Esaias.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Thank you Brother Esaias, beautifully written.
Very understandable and enlightening

Thank you for the kind words!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

When Moses received the 10 commandments, the Sabbath was instituted for the Israelites as a day they could do no work, a day of rest.
Their worship was a daily worship and sacrificial system of animal offerings along with feasts and remembrances.

A lot of folks think in terms of "The Sabbath is old testament, where you worship God one day a week, but under the new testament we get rid of the Sabbath day and worship God every day! Yay!"

But as you pointed out, worship under the old covenant was very much a daily affair, teaching us clearly that God is not to be worshipped only one day a week, even if that day happens to be the Sabbath. This seemed to be the problem with Israel, they would worship God by lip service on the Sabbath but the other days God was stuck in the cupboard back home while they went about their business. God wants worship every day. Not only that, but the CONTINUAL SACRIFICE shows us God wants us to worship him CONTINUALLY, the light must be ALWAYS burning, the fire on the altar is to never go out.