In conjunction with the three Old Testament covenants--with Noah, Abraham, and the Israelites--God gave three signs to remind people about key elements in the covenants. These signs were the rainbow, circumcision, and the seventh-day Sabbath. Each sign was also intended to remind later generations of the covenant principles that God had sought to instill in the minds of the recipients of the earlier covenants. Each of these covenants was termed an "everlasting covenant" by virtue of its expression of the primordial everlasting covenant that encompasses the depth and breadth of God's unchanging commitment to His entire created order.
Rainbow
After the flood God made a covenant with the earth through Noah and created the rainbow as "the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth" that He would never again destroy the earth by a flood (Gen. 9:8-17). There appears to be no terminus to this sign. In Ezekiel's vision "the glory of the Lord" had "the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him" (Ezek. 1:28). John's vision of the throne room of God in heaven revealed "a rainbow, resembling an emerald, [which] encircled the throne" (Rev. 4:3). In His glorified state Jesus appeared to John "with a rainbow above His head" (Rev. 10:1). So it seems reasonable to assume that the rainbow will continue as a symbol of God's faithfulness to His covenant promises throughout eternity.
Circumcision
Many scholars consider the sign of circumcision as a symbol of a self-male-dictory oath: "If I am not loyal in faith and obedience to the Lord, may the sword of the Lord cut off me and my offspring ... as I have cut off my foreskin."[1]
When God initiated His covenant with Abraham, He ratified it in a ritual involving slain animals (Gen. 15:6-18). "In ancient times the parties solemnized a covenant by walking down an aisle flanked by the pieces of slaughtered animals (see Jer. 34:18-19). The practice signified a self-male-dictory oath: 'May it be so done to me if I do not keep my oath and pledge.'"[2] In a covenant made between unequals, the superior party, such as a victorious king, would require the inferior party, such as a defeated king, to walk between the pieces, pledging loyalty to the victor on pain of death for disloyalty to the terms of the covenant. But in Abraham's case, he saw a vision of a "blazing torch," representing God Himself, the superior party to the covenant, passing between the pieces (Gen. 15:17-18). Thus, in the strongest possible way, God assured Abraham of His commitment to His covenant promises.[3]
God promised to give Abraham a son through whom his descendants would become as numerous as the stars (Gen. 15:1-5). "Abram believed the Lord [specifically, God's promise to give him a son], and he credited it to him as righteousness" (Gen. 15:6). Genesis 15 records the whole story.
The very next chapter, Genesis 16, records the story of Abraham's impatience with God's delay in fulfilling His promise and apparent doubt as to whether He would really do so. So, at the bidding of his wife Sarah, he produced a child himself through her maidservant, Hagar. The chapter describes the grief and estrangement Abraham's action created in his family--grief that reaches to this very day in the Arab/Israeli conflict.
In Genesis 17 God returned to Abraham, renewed His covenant pledge to him as "an everlasting covenant," and introduced circumcision as "the sign of the covenant"--a sign carved into Abraham's physical flesh by which he had taken matters into his own hands to force God's promise to be fulfilled in his own way (Gen. 17:7, 11, 13, 19). Circumcision would be a perpetual reminder to him and his descendants, who were also to undergo the rite (Gen. 17:12-14; 21:2-4), of the utter futility and waywardness of trying to force the fulfillment of God's promises, whether physical or spiritual promises, by our own efforts. It would be a perpetual reminder that our acceptance before God is based solely on our trust in Him, not on our own efforts. It was a symbol that true love and obedience for God come not by human effort but by a heart transformation performed by God when we submit to Him in reverence and trust. It was a sign that all spiritual achievements come not by human might and power but by the Spirit of the Lord Almighty.
When Moses was on the road back to Egypt to fulfill his call from God to demand that Pharaoh set His people free, God met Moses and threatened to take his life, until Moses's wife Zipporah interposed and circumcised their son (Exod. 4:24-26). This drastic action on God's part reminded Moses that the deliverance of His people from bondage in Egypt, which later represented deliverance from spiritual bondage to sin, would not come by Moses's might or power but by God's own Spirit.
Forty years later when the nation of Israel returned to the banks of Jordan and was about to follow Joshua into the promised land, God required that the Israelite men first be circumcised to remind them that the conquest of Canaan would not come by their might or power but by His Spirit (Josh. 5:1-9).
The Spiritual Meaning of Circumcision
The sign of circumcision was not meant to be merely a physical identity marker to distinguish Jews from non-Jews but even more so a spiritual identity marker. "Other nations also practiced circumcision."[4] However, circumcision had a different meaning for God's covenant people than it did for the nations around them. By referring back to Abraham's experience, it represented their total dependence on God for every physical and spiritual blessing, that their victory in this life and the next would come by faith in God rather than their own independent efforts, and that God and God alone was their strength and righteousness. The physical sign in the flesh represented a spiritual transformation of the heart, which God was pledged to accomplish in response to their faith in Him: "The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live" (Deut. 30:6).[5] Embedded in this assurance was the new covenant promise: "I will put my laws in their minds and write them in their hearts." The fulfillment of this promise was assured to all who did not resist the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, "not all the Israelites accepted the good news" (Rom. 10:16). Stephen said that "uncircumcised hearts" resulted from "always resist[ing] the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51).
So the Old Testament emphasis on circumcision was never merely as a physical identity marker, but always connoted spiritual relation to God, of trust in and love for God, and of the holiness of character that would rightly represent Him before others. When Moses expressed doubts that his "uncircumcised lips"[6] (Exod. 6:12, 30 NKJV) could persuade Pharaoh to let God's people go, he doubted his own ability to speak with the power and authority of God that would change Pharaoh's heart. David's query concerning Goliath--"Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?"--had in mind Goliath's rebellious attitude toward God, not simply his physical foreskin (1 Sam. 17:26; cf. v. 36). Jeremiah pines that Israel's "ears are closed" (Hebrew, "uncircumcised") to God's warning appeals, rendering them "uncircumcised in heart" (Jer. 6:8-10; 9:26; cf. Ezek. 44:7-9).
The teaching of the historical old covenant law and prophets regarding circumcision was expressed eloquently by Paul in Romans: "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly [old covenant experience of spiritually and proudly relying on one's ethnic origin, religious affiliation, or outward conformity to religious regulations], nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly [new covenant experience]; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart [an internalized new covenant experience], by the Spirit, and not by the written code [an externalized old covenant experience]"[7] (Rom. 2:28-29).
Salvation was not based on circumcision in the Old Testament. The list in Hebrews 11 of those saved by faith before circumcision was introduced as a covenant sign demonstrates that salvation and righteousness were always dependent on the grace of God and were to be received by faith. Paul testifies that righteousness was not credited to Abraham based on circumcision but on his faith (Rom. 4:10-11). Thus, on behalf of those in every historical era whom the Holy Spirit has brought to conversion, Abraham "is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised" as well as "the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised" (Rom. 4:11-12).[8]
The fact that circumcision was required of God's covenant people as His missionary nation does not mean that their salvation was based on circumcision any more than God's appeal to us in the New Testament to be baptized and obey His law would prevent Him from saving the thief on the cross who simply called out to Jesus in faith (Mark 16:16; Matt. 5:19; Luke 23:40-43).[9]
Circumcision in the New Testament
Circumcision was not only a covenant sign but also a ceremonial rite, albeit a ritual outside the sanctuary system. Practiced from the time of Abraham throughout the Old Testament period as the sign of the covenant, circumcision by New Testament times had come to represent not only the whole body of ceremonial laws but even more so the legalistic attitude toward them, and all God's other commandments, held by the Jews at large.[10] The issue that precipitated the church council recorded in Acts 15 was the teaching of some that "unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1).
But in reality, circumcision in and of itself never saved anyone. "We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised" (Rom. 4:9-11).
The Jerusalem council made the decision, "which seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us," that circumcision would not be among the requirements placed on the Gentiles (Acts 15:23-29). The Holy Spirit guided them to the conclusion that the God-given spiritual meaning signified by the physical act of circumcision had become so laden with legalistic overtones that it had to be discarded as a covenant sign.
The Old Testament rite of circumcision appears to have been replaced by the New Testament ceremony of baptism: "In him [Christ] you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men, but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:11-12).
While baptism is the Christian initiation ceremony equivalent to circumcision in the Old Testament, the New Testament does not specifically designate it as a covenant sign. If God declared of the covenant sign of circumcision, "My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant" (Gen. 17:13), how could it later be discontinued and replaced with the baptismal ceremony? For one thing, the scriptural use of the Hebrew term olam, from which we get the English translations of "everlasting" and "forever," while generally indicating "never ending," does not always mean that.[11] Each use of that term in Scripture must be interpreted in relation to its context.[12] The New Testament clearly states that the physical act of circumcision no longer serves as a covenant sign.
In his Galatian letter alone, Paul refers to circumcision thirteen times, never positively. He even asserts, "If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all" (Gal. 5:2). Even then, however, it was not so much the physical act of circumcision itself against which he was contending but against the legalistic application made of it by those who "were teaching the brothers: 'Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved'" (Acts 15:1).
Paul instructs the Galatians that circumcision for those who "want to be under the law" and "rely on observing the law" represents a disconnect from Christ and the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ (Gal. 4:21; Gal. 3:10). He reminded the Galatians that against the urging of "false brothers" he had refused to have Titus circumcised, because to do otherwise would have emboldened their belief in the meritorious significance of the act itself (Gal. 2:3-5). However, on his second missionary journey Paul did have Timothy circumcised "as a matter of expediency so that his work among the Jews might be more effective,"[13] which further reveals that it was not the physical act of circumcision against which he was contending but its legalistic application.
Many believers in God's new covenant historical period have had their sons circumcised, not as meritorious acts but for health reasons, without any concern that by doing so Christ would become of no value to them. It's not the physical act itself but the motivation behind it that determines its value and significance. Just as surely as one could be circumcised for legalistic motivations, one could also refuse to be circumcised for legalistic, experientially old covenant motivations. It's possible that someone today could refuse to be circumcised, or refuse to have his son circumcised, based on the New Testament statement, "If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." But if by doing so he would hope to increase his chances of gaining eternal life, he would be exhibiting an old covenant experience. The bottom line issue in the New Testament is not circumcision or no circumcision but a new covenant experience versus an old covenant experience.
The Sabbath
"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Say to the Israelites, "You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the Lord, who makes you holy. ... The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested"'" (Exod. 31:12-13,16-17).
Instituted at Creation
Several important observations can be made concerning God's establishment of the Sabbath as "a sign between me and the Israelites forever." First, God anchored the sign significance of the Sabbath in creation--"It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested" (Exod. 31:17). The Sabbath was not limited to Judaism but "was made for man" (Mark 2:27-28) by the Lord Himself at creation as a day for Adam and his descendants to cease their labor and, in the words of Herman Witsius, to engage in "the worship of God, (that is, laying aside the things pertaining to the body and its conveniences, be wholly taken up in those duties which become a soul delighting in God, glorifying him and celebrating his praise,) and that too in the public assembly, for the common joy and edification of all."[14] Indeed, many, if not most, Reformed theologians including Calvin himself recognize this truth and argue for it persuasively.[15]
Residual Glow of Creation
In 1948 two scientists, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, were working with colleague George Gamow on the Big Bang theory of the origin of our universe. Alpher and Herman postulated that if their theory were true, there should be a detectable radioactive residual glow or radioactive "noise" present in the universe from the original explosion. The scientific community in general did not hold this new theory in high esteem, and therefore no experiments were conducted to test it. However, in 1965, two Bell Telephone engineers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, discovered that a horn antenna they had constructed to search for signals coming to earth from space was picking up a low level, constant static from every direction. This frustrated them until a friend told them about Alpher and Herman's theory. Subsequent research confirmed that the signal Penzias and Wilson had discovered had the very pattern of wavelengths that would be expected to persist from the primordial explosion. This discovery has been heralded as "one of the great scientific events of all time," and established scientific credibility for the idea that our universe had an origin.[16]
In a similar manner, the seventh-day Sabbath could be considered the "residual glow" of God's creation of our world as revealed in Genesis 1. When God codified the Sabbath in the fourth commandment, He specifically referenced it to His creation of our world in seven days. "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefor the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" (Exod. 20:11).
The universally recognized "week of seven days" is most likely rooted in "the original institution of the Sabbath."[17] In over one hundred languages of the world, the name for the seventh day of the week is not "Saturday" as in the English language but rather "Sabbath" or its equivalent, which could possibly point to an ancient, universal recognition of the seventh-day Sabbath.[18]
Sign of the Creation Covenant
The Sabbath was instituted at creation both as a blessing ordinance for the benefit of humankind and as a divinely appointed sign of the creation covenant. Meredith Kline explains it thus: "If the Sabbath ordinance serves as a symbolic sign of God's covenantal Lordship in the holy kingdom of Israel, it is surely because the original divine Sabbath represented the Creator's covenantal Lordship over the world. ... The meaning of the original Sabbath (Gen. 2:2) is mirrored in the Sabbath ordinance (Gen. 2:3), the record of which emphasizes that the Sabbath is set apart as sacred to the Creator. ... Observance of the Sabbath by man is thus a confession that Yahweh is his Lord and Lord of all Lords. Sabbath-keeping expresses man's commitment to the service of his Lord"[19] (italics added).
Many theologians have recognized the parallels between God's intervention after the flood and the Genesis creation story. In the list given by Jacques Doukhan, note the parallels, especially the parallel between the covenant signs--the rainbow after the flood and the Sabbath at creation:
1. The wind over the earth and waters. Gen. 8:1; cf. Gen. 1:2.
2. Division of waters. Gen. 8:2-5; cf. Gen. 1:6-8.
3. Appearance of plants. Gen. 8:6-12; cf. Gen. 1:9-13.
4. Appearance of light. Gen. 8:13-14; cf. Gen. 1:14-19.
5. Deliverance of animals. Gen. 8:15-17; cf. Gen. 1:20-23.
6. Animals together with men, blessing, food for men, image of God. Gen. 8:18-9:7; Gen. 1:24-31.
7. Sign of covenant. Gen. 9:8-17 [rainbow, sign of the Noachian covenant]; cf. Gen. 2:1-3 [Sabbath, sign of the covenant of creation].[20]
Sign That God Makes Us Holy
Instituted at creation, the Sabbath "represented the Creator's covenantal Lordship over the world,"[21] intended as a blessing for all humankind. When God reiterated the Sabbath institution to Israel, He elaborated on its sign significance, calling His holy day a representation of His commitment and ability to make His people holy, the great purpose of the covenant of redemption: "[The Sabbath] will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the Lord, who makes you holy" (Exod. 31:12).
At creation "God blessed the seventh day and made it holy" (Gen. 2:3). The day was not intrinsically holy, except by virtue of God's investiture of it as a holy day. Its role as a sign for God's covenant people was to represent to them that 1) they have no holiness at all except through His presence among them and by the work of His Spirit within them, and that 2) a divinely inwrought holiness of character is to be their identity marker as His covenant people.[22] God set them apart from the nations that they might "be holy, because I am holy," and that through the resultant holiness of their lives attained by their connection with God they might leaven the nations with His grace and salvation (Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7; Ezek. 36:23; 1 Pet. 2:13-16).[23]
Some would claim that God's Sabbath commandment taught Old Testament believers to limit their worship of God and communion with God to a single day each week, in contrast to the new covenant emphasis on a daily, continual experience with God. This claim is made in an attempt to demonstrate that believers in the new covenant era have expanded spiritual freedom and access to God, compared to those in the old covenant era. Portrayed thus, the new covenant provides an invitation to worship God whenever we choose rather than just one day a week. But this misrepresents both the Sabbath commandment and the teaching of God's historical old covenant. God appealed through Moses: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up" (Deut. 6:5-7).
The historical old covenant believer's consciousness of God permeated every waking activity day and night: "And on his law [the record of God's redeeming works on his behalf and the totality of God's revealed will for him] he meditates day and night" (Ps. 1:2). Indeed, worship of God on the Sabbath enhanced the believer's consciousness of God throughout the week. The Sabbath freed believing worshipers from the distractions of everyday work activities and the guilt of not attending to uncompleted work projects, and freed them to focus on spiritual issues that were closest to their hearts.
I've heard some people say in essence, "I'm a new covenant believer and worship God in freedom every day rather than just one day a week as they did in the days of old covenant bondage." This sounds very spiritual. But such a "new covenant believer" misunderstands both the letter and the spirit of God's historical old covenant, and the deep spiritual "new covenant" love-based experience that God provided through it for His Old Testament people.
The Sabbath and the New Covenant
The applicability of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment to New Testament believers has been a subject of debate for much of the New Testament period. It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss all the biblical, theological, and historical issues involved in that ongoing discussion, except as they relate to the old and new covenants.[24]
For Israel Only?
One such argument against the continuing application of the Sabbath for believers in the New Testament era focuses on its purported role exclusively as a sign of the covenant between God and the nation of Israel ("It will be a sign between me and the Israelites" Exod. 31:17) during the old covenant historical era from Sinai to Jesus's initiation of the new covenant at the Last Supper. But this ignores three very important points, the first being that the Sabbath was instituted at creation for the benefit of all humankind long before the nation of Israel existed.
Secondly, even when God invested the Sabbath with the significance of "a sign between me and the Israelites" at the time He gave them the law at Sinai, He never intended it to be a sign for the nation of Israel exclusively. One of God's primary purposes in His covenants with Abraham and Israel was to prepare a genuinely converted people with new covenant experiences to be His witnesses to the nations. People from every nation who responded to the gospel invitation by putting their trust in God were to be incorporated into His covenant community. It was written in the law: "You and the alien shall be the same before the Lord. The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you" (Num. 15:15-16). Zechariah spoke of a remnant of Philistines who could "become leaders in Judah" (Zech. 9:6-7). Isaiah specifically appealed to foreign converts: "Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the Lord say, 'The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.' ... For this is what the Lord says: ... 'foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to serve him, to love the name of the Lord, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant-these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'" (Isa. 56:3-4,6-7).
Becoming a full-fledged member of the covenant community involved circumcision for the males[25] just as becoming a member of the church involves baptism today. Being a full-fledged member of the covenant community also involved participating in the sacrificial services which pointed forward to the Messiah's atoning sacrifice, just as becoming a member of the church today involves participation in the holy communion service. In the same way, the Sabbath, which God designated as "a sign between me and the Israelites," was a sign between Him and the foreign converts to His covenant community (Num. 15:15-16; Isa. 56:3-7).
Throughout God's historical old covenant period from Sinai on, the Sabbath was a sign between God and all who had become spiritual Israelites by faith. Even in its role as a divine sign between God and His covenant people, the Sabbath never exclusively applied to the nation of Israel, but included all people from all nations who became part of the covenant community through faith in God. Paul's statement that "those who believe are children of Abraham" acknowledged a timeless and universal truth (Gal. 3:7; cf. Isa. 56:3-7).
This makes the third point highly significant. The new covenant, like the old, was not made with the nations at large, but specifically with Israel: "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. ... This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord (Jer. 31:31,33; Heb. 8:8,10).
God's historical new covenant, like the old, only had application to the nations in general through the faithful witness of God's covenant people, namely spiritual Israel--"those who believe" (Gal. 3:7).[26] As the nations responded to the witness of God's new covenant "Israel" by putting faith in God and submitting to the continuing work of His Spirit in their lives to make them a holy people with an "obedience that comes from faith," they would be incorporated into the covenant people, the true Israel of God. This brings new significance to God's statement that the Sabbath "will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever" (Exod. 31:17). If the Sabbath applied to literal Israel only, then so does the new covenant. However, just as the new covenant, which was specifically "for the house of Israel," applied to all "those who believe," it is reasonable to conclude that the Sabbath, which was God's chosen "sign" between Himself and Israel, should likewise still apply to all "those who believe."
Unless God Himself revoked the Sabbath with the same clarity and force as He revoked circumcision,[27] the Sabbath must continue to have significance throughout the new covenant historical era. It is still a sign between God and the true, new covenant, Israel, and will be forever.
Change of Wills?
There are several immediate objections to this conclusion. The first is the claim that the covenants are God's legal will in which He identifies the inheritance His covenant children will receive, as well as stipulating any conditions that may need to be fulfilled to receive the inheritance. Thus, it is claimed, God's historical new covenant represents His updated will that voids and replaces His previous will, the historical old covenant.
The question must be asked, however, did God intend for the New Testament to completely overwrite the Old Testament? The scriptural answer is clearly no.
Paul wrote to Timothy, "From infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Here Paul strongly affirms that the Scriptures Timothy learned from in his infancy--the Old Testament Scriptures--are "able to make you wise for salvation" and are "useful for teaching ["doctrine" NKJV], rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"--all the divinely ordained functions of holy Scripture. Furthermore, when Paul preached the gospel, he encouraged his hearers to check the (Old Testament) Scriptures "to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11).
As the New Testament gospel was being promoted throughout the world, the New Testament evangelists and authors used the Old Testament Scriptures as their authority, as the many Old Testament quotations in the books of Romans and Galatians, and indeed in most of the New Testament books, amply illustrate. While Peter acknowledged that in his own day some of Paul's letters came to be regarded on the same level of authority as the Old Testament (2 Pet. 3:15-16), the Bible of New Testament believers in the days of the apostles was essentially the Old Testament Scriptures. If any teaching in the Old Testament needed to be overwritten in the New Testament era, it would be made unmistakably clear, as it was in the case of circumcision (Acts 15:1-31; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:2).
Animal sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood were also abolished, and the author of Hebrews makes it clear that this was done in light of Jesus's completed, once-for-all sacrifice and His eternal priesthood (Heb. 7:11-28; 9:11-28). Major sections of the New Testament are dedicated to overwriting these Old Testament ceremonial practices regarding circumcision, priesthood, and sacrifice. Barring such clear and forthright indications, the default position is that later covenants incorporate and expand on the major elements of previous ones.
There are two places in the New Testament where God's covenant is likened to a will. The first is in Galatians:
Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant [will] that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, "and to your seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed" [quoting Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 24:7], meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: the law [God's covenant at Sinai], introduced 430 years later [than God's covenant with Abraham], does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. ... Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! (3:15-18, 21)
Paul's point is precisely that God's covenant at Sinai did not overwrite the gospel taught in His previous covenant with Abraham but incorporated it. "The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise [that is, the gospel given to Abraham, and before him to Adam and Noah on behalf of their descendants]" (Gal. 3:17).
The second New Testament reference comparing God's covenant to a will is in Hebrews:
The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody had died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why the first covenant was not put into effect without blood (9:15-18).
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (9:22).
But now he has appeared at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself (9:26).
The meaning of these texts is straightforward. Just as a human will takes effect when a death occurs, so God's forgiving grace extended to humankind through previous ages anticipated the atoning death of Jesus. All the animal sacrifices during the historical old covenant era pointed forward as mere shadows of this reality. And now that the great sacrifice has been made, sins committed under all God's covenants, previous and present, have been atoned for by the blood of the true Lamb of God. The once-for-all atoning death of Jesus "put an end to sacrifice" forever in the economy of God (Dan. 9:27).
A number of years ago a friend of mine included me in his will. Later I learned that he had made several wills along the way, updating various particulars with each one. It's rare that a new will completely overhauls a previous version. Generally, it adjusts for major changes in circumstances (someone named in the will has died, some item of value has been added or lost to the estate, etc.). In my case, my friend had penciled me in during the last days of his life. The will had not even been retyped. It was essentially the same will, only now with me included.
Similarly, the New Testament incorporates the gospel of the Old Testament. It need not restate a provision of the gospel previously revealed for that provision to be applicable. If such provisions are not repealed, they remain unless the circumstances to which they were addressed no longer exist or have materially changed. Neither is the case with regard to the fourth commandment. Jesus acknowledged such Himself when He affirmed that "the Sabbath was made for man," and "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27; Matt. 12:12). Jesus never questioned whether the Sabbath should be kept, but He had issues with the scribes of His time about how and why it should be kept. The gospels record numerous healing miracles Jesus performed on the Sabbath, to which the rabbis objected as improper Sabbath-keeping. They didn't allow carrying a burden on the Sabbath, and Jesus defended His healing acts on the Sabbath as an act of removing the burden of physical ailments from those "bound" by them so they could worship burden-free (e.g., Luke 13:10-16). One can only imagine what many interpreters would make of it if these same miracles had all been performed on the first day of the week.
Literal and Spiritual Israel
A second objection sometimes made to the belief that the seventh-day Sabbath still remains for the new covenant people of God focuses on an alleged fundamental difference between the historical old and new covenants. This argument contends that the old covenant initiated by God at Sinai was made with the literal descendants of Israel regardless of whether they exercised faith or obedience of any kind. Thus, the covenant blessings and curses were apparently applicable to the faithless Israelites even as to the faithful ones. Does not this observation establish that God's historical old covenant, which was with all natural descendants of Abraham through Isaac, was significantly and essentially different from His historical new covenant which He made exclusively with true spiritual Israelites who have the faith of Abraham?
The answer is no. For while the historical Sinai covenant was indeed with the literal descendants of Israel, it always had in mind their spiritual conversion and growth into a new covenant experience. God designed everything in the covenant to achieve that end.
In a similar way, everyone is in covenant relation to God by virtue of birth into the world, and is subject to the covenant blessings and curses of God's everlasting covenant with all humankind. Thus Isaiah could boldly say, "The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt" (Isa. 24:5). Without a doubt, all the people of the earth are in covenant relation to God in the sense of being held responsible for the knowledge God provides them through nature and the Spirit concerning His nature and laws (John 1:9; Acts 17:26-27; Rom. 1:18-20; 3:19).[28] But only those who respond to Him in faith, a faith which results in the obedience that comes from faith, are considered part of the covenant people of God (James 2:8-26).
The same distinction can be made between those whose Israelite identity in the Old Testament era was simply a matter of having genealogical ancestors who could be traced back to Sinai or Abraham, and those who actually entered into covenant relation with God by faith. "Not all who are descended from Israel [the physical descendants of those who received the covenants] are Israel [those who entered into covenant relation with God by faith and by the Spirit gained a new covenant experience]. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children" (Rom. 9:6,7).
Paul was emphatic: "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly [having simply been born into it genealogically speaking, or perhaps even having meticulously complied with the covenant commandments from a legalistic motivation], nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly [with a new covenant experience--genuinely converted, growing in love for God and in the obedience that comes from faith]; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code" (Rom. 2:28-29).
The same application could be made for those born into a Christian home and perhaps baptized as infants or as young children who did not understand what baptism meant. They may be listed in the official church records as members of the covenant community, even while it is acknowledged that "to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God" (John 1:12).
Regarding Every Day Alike
A third objection to the applicability of the Sabbath as a new covenant institution is the claim that in Romans 14 and Colossians 2 Paul appeals for Christians not to judge one another with regard to the Sabbath.
Romans 14:5 reads, "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." Paul surely would not have in mind here the Sabbath God instituted at creation, embedded in the Ten Commandments, and which both Jesus and Paul observed throughout their lives.
In Romans 14:1 Paul admonishes Christians against "passing judgment on disputable matters." The Sabbath instituted at creation and embedded in the Ten Commandments was never a disputable matter.[29] However, what evidently had come to dispute within the Jewish Christian community was whether Christians could or should observe the ceremonial festivals, feast days, and holy days, such as Passover, which had been fulfilled by Christ's sacrifice, as distinguished from the Sabbath which Christ had instituted at creation.[30] Paul responded in Romans 14: In these disputable matters, let each decide for himself. There is no sin in observing such ceremonies as long as one realizes that Christ to whom they pointed has now come. On the other hand, Jewish Christians should not feel that Gentile Christians have to attend such feasts or observe the proscribed fast days. Let each be convinced in his own mind about such things. A number of biblical scholars concur with this general interpretation, viewing Paul's discussion in Romans 14:1-5 as an extension of issues he addresses in 1 Corinthians 8-10.[31]
A Shadow of Things to Come
Colossians 2:16-17 says, "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. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality however is found in Christ." These verses are often coupled with verses 13-14--"He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross"--to make the point that God nailed the Ten Commandments to the cross, abolishing them, and with them the seventh-day Sabbath. However, "the written code (or 'bond') that was against us" is not a reference to the Ten Commandments per se but rather to the death warrant incurred due to sin, as G.R. Beasley-Murray aptly states:
Christ has "cancelled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands." The "bond" is an I.O.U., a signed statement of indebtedness; if it applies to the Jew through his acceptance of the Law, it also applies to the Gentile who recognizes his obligation to what he knows of the will of God. It means, in the picturesque paraphrase of Moule, "I owe obedience to God's will, signed Mankind." This bond stands "against us," for we have all failed to discharge its obligations (cf. Rom. 7:16, 22f.). By becoming man and accepting the death warrant which the bond constituted, Christ has discharged the debt, erased the writing of the bond, and nailed it to his cross to show that it no longer has any force.[32]
The Sabbaths, or elements of the Sabbath, referred to in Colossians 2:16 were only those that were "a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ," which was true only of the ceremonial Sabbaths,[33] or of the ceremonial activities that were performed on the seventh-day Sabbath as part of the Old Testament sanctuary services.[34] In contrast to the seventh-day Sabbath of the Decalogue, both the ceremonial Sabbaths and the specific ceremonial activities carried out on the Sabbath were types pointing forward to the coming Messiah. Once Christ had come, the ceremonial services and activities pointing to Him came to an end, as was already anticipated and prophesied in the Old Testament (Dan. 9:26-27), and were replaced by the holy communion service.
A number of scholars believe that Paul never intended his statement in Colossians 2:16-17 as an abolishment of the Sabbath God Himself instituted at creation. See appendix C for a listing of their comments on this passage.
Observing Special Days
Those who argue against the continuing sanctity of the seventh-day Sabbath often link Galatians 4:10 with Romans 14:4-5 and Colossians 2:16. Here Paul laments that the Galatians appeared to have backslidden into their former observance of "special days and months and seasons and years." Note the text within its immediate context in Galatians 4:8-11: "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God-or rather are known by God-how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you."
Even if the "special days" referred to in this passage include the seventhday Sabbath (a conclusion which is highly debatable as we shall see), that does not necessarily argue against the continuing sanctity of the seventhday Sabbath. Many scholars interpret this text as an attack on a legalistic, heartless observance of religious ritual rather than an attack on the ritual itself.[35]
Marvin Moore sees an important application for seventh-day Sabbath keepers in Galatians 4:10:
The issue is how we keep the Sabbath. Do we keep it by the rule book, with our primary attention given to what is right and wrong to do on the Sabbath? Or is the primary focus of our Sabbathkeeping a relationship with Jesus and our Christian brothers and sisters? If the former, then Galatians 4:10 applies to the weekly Sabbath as much as it does to any of the yearly Sabbaths, new moons, and other festivals in the Jewish year. Sabbath-keeping by the rule book is a reversion to the "weak and miserable" basic principles of the world that Paul spoke about in Galatians 4:9, just before his comments about days and months and seasons and years....He was telling the Galatian Christians to move beyond the rules and regulations to the heart of what it means to keep the Sabbath.[36]
But Troy Martin, professor at Xavier University in Chicago, contends that evidence both external and internal to the text itself supports the conclusion that "when Paul refers to days, months, seasons, and years in Gal 4:10, he lists categories most characteristic of a pagan time-keeping system."[37] Other Bible scholars concur with Martin in this conclusion.[38]
"The immediate context of Gal 4.10 argues for the pagan character of this list. In 4.8, Paul mentions the former pagan life of the Galatian Christians. In 4.9, he asks them how they can desire their former life again. He then proposes their observance of the time-keeping scheme in 4.10 as a demonstrative proof of their reversion to their old life. Considering only the immediate context of Gal 4.10, the list must be understood as a pagan temporal scheme."[39] Thus, as the immediate context supports, Galatians 4:8-11 most likely constitutes Paul's warning for pagans not to revert to their heathen religious customs, which included observing the "special days, months and seasons" of the heathen religious calendar.
The Sabbath's Relationship to Circumcision and the Lord's Supper
It is a scriptural fact that while the Jerusalem council deliberations recorded in Acts 15 include enormous contention over the applicability of circumcision to Gentile Christians in the New Testament era, there is no discussion whatsoever over the issue of the Sabbath. This fact supports the applicability of the Sabbath of the Decalogue for the New Testament era. Thus, it is precisely against this observation that the third objection to the applicability of the Sabbath as a new covenant observance has been directed. Note the following claim:
The entrance sign to the old covenant was circumcision, and the continuing, repeatable sign Israel was to "remember" was the Sabbath, [while] the entrance sign of the new covenant is baptism, [and] the continuing sign of the New Testament that we are to "remember" is the Lord's Supper. ... If circumcision were not required for Gentile Christians, then neither would Sabbath observance be required, for the Sabbath was reserved only for members of the old covenant community. ... The Jerusalem council settled the issue ... not by dealing with the Sabbath directly, but by way of eliminating the entrance sign in the old covenant: circumcision.[40]
The author making this claim summarized it in the following chart:[41]
1. [Old Covenant]
a) Entrance Sign: Circumcision
b) Remembrance Sign: Sabbath
2. [New Covenant]
a) Entrance Sign: Baptism
b) Remembrance Sign: The Lord's Supper
This argument attempts to account for the remarkable lack of controversy in the New Testament over something so radical as a change in one of the Ten Commandments. But it makes the following three grave errors.
The first error lies in the assertion that the validity and applicability of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was dependant on the observance of circumcision. If the Sabbath relied on circumcision for its applicability, so should the rest of the Ten Commandments. There is nothing in Scripture that even hints at such a connection between circumcision and the fourth commandment. Indeed, the Sabbath (instituted at creation) pre-dated circumcision (instituted in the Abrahamic covenant) by many centuries.
The second error involves the assertion that Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper as a replacement for the Sabbath. What is quite clear from Scripture is that the Lord's Supper replaced the animal sacrificial ceremonial system that pointed forward to the atoning ministry of the Messiah. Jesus's very words on the night He observed the Passover meal with His disciples--"This is my body. ... This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many"--introduce the communion service as the replacement for the Passover and the entire bloody sacrificial system of the old covenant (Mark 14:22,24). The blood of animals was being replaced by Christ's own blood, represented by the communion cup. Animal sacrifice was the forwardlooking ceremony, while the Lord's Supper is the backward-looking one. The book of Hebrews weighs in heavily against continuing to perform animal sacrifices now that Jesus's sacrifice has been made, but it breathes not a word against God's Sabbath. The more accurate alignment of old and new covenant ceremonies looks like this:
1. Old Testament
a) Initiation ceremony: Circumcision
b) Continuing ceremony: Animal sacrifices
2. New Testament
a) Initiation ceremony: Baptism[42]
b) Continuing ceremony: Communion/Lord's Supper[43]
The third error in the argument under scrutiny is the failure to distinguish between circumcision as one of the ceremonial provisions of the old covenant, albeit one chosen by God as a covenant sign, in contrast to the Sabbath as one of God's enduring commandments. "Circumcision is nothing and un-circumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts" (1 Cor. 7:19). It was God, not Moses, who embedded the Sabbath in His enduring moral code of Ten Commandments, perhaps in part to prevent it from being confused with the provisional ceremonial regulations.
Jerusalem Council Directives
The Jerusalem council required only four things of Gentile Christians: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:28-29).
Why these particular laws and not others? Certainly the council would not consider Gentile Christians in good and regular standing if they committed murder, rebelled against their parents, bore false witness against their neighbors, never gave a penny to support the advancement of God's kingdom or to relieve the suffering of the poor, and never showed love for God or their neighbor as themselves.
It has been suggested that the four requirements the council asked Gentile Christians to observe were so-called Noahic laws that Jewish tradition held had been given to humankind in general prior to Sinai. One searches in vain to find a scriptural commandment to abstain from food polluted by idols or from sexual immorality prior to Sinai. This doesn't mean that such laws were not given or known by people before that time, but simply that they weren't recorded in the early records of Scripture. These laws, and others with them, may have been among those God had in mind when He said to Isaac, "Through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws" (Gen. 26:4-5). Nevertheless, the council chose to ignore everything but the four requirements identified in Acts 15:29. Nor did the early Christians require more of Gentile Christians anytime soon. Two missionary journeys later those were still the only requirements expected of Gentile Christians (Acts 21:25).
Concerning these four specific requirements placed on Gentile Christians, Davidson observes: "Particularly striking is that this is the same list, in the same order, as the four major legal prohibitions explicitly stated to be applicable to the stranger/alien as well as to the native Israelites in Lev 17-18. In these OT chapters we find (1) sacrificing to demons/idols (Lev 17:7-9); (2) eating blood (Lev 17:10-12); (3) eating anything that has not been immediately drained of its blood (Lev 17:13-16); and (4) various illicit sexual practices (Lev 18)."[44]
While the universal applicability of the moral provisions of the Ten Commandments was never in question by the Jerusalem council, the same was apparently not the case with the ceremonial provisions of the law in a post-resurrection-and-ascension-of-Christ era. Therefore, the council felt the need to specify the importance of these four provisions specifically enjoined upon the stranger/alien/gentile (Hebrew, ger), as well as the Israelite, in the law. Because the Ten Commandments were taken for granted as universally applicable, the council had no need to specifically instruct Gentile converts not to murder or steal, to be respectfully obedient to parents, or to observe the Sabbath (which in the law was itself enjoined upon "the alien [Hebrew, ger] within your gates," Exod. 20:10; cf. Isa. 56:3-7).
How did the leaders of the Jerusalem council expect the Gentile Christians to grow into spiritual maturity and sacrificial love and care for others? The plethora of ethical commandments that emerged in the New Testament writings suggests that they didn't expect Gentiles to develop a mature Christian experience of holiness and mission exclusively through private prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in isolation from Christian community and Scripture. They undoubtedly expected that more seasoned Jewish Christian communities would provide godly environments wherein Gentile converts fresh out of paganism would be nurtured in faith and service. But equally if not more importantly, the Jerusalem council trusted that Gentile converts would be nurtured through the sanctifying influence of the Holy Scriptures.
Immediately following their announced decision regarding the four requirements expected of Gentile Christians, the council added, "For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (Acts 15:21). In other words, they expected that new Gentile Christians would attend a synagogue and hear "Moses" read on the Sabbath. No doubt their reference to "Moses" in this instance had in mind the entire Old Testament including the writings of Moses. The council trusted the influence of the Scriptures of their day, read in corporate worship every Sabbath, to make new Gentile Christians "wise for salvation," providing for them the needed "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" that would be essential for them to mature in their new faith (2 Tim. 3:15-16).[45] They knew that when God's word goes forth from His mouth, it does not return to Him void, but accomplishes the very purpose for which He sent it--the conversion and sanctification of those who hear in faith (Isa. 55:10-11).
Testimony for the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath in the Book of Revelation
The book of Revelation is permeated with direct and indirect allusions to the Ten Commandments, showing their enduring nature. Sprinkled throughout the book are references that allude to the specific commandments: 2nd--"worshiping...idols" (Rev. 9:20); 3rd--"have not denied my name" (Rev. 3:8; cf. 21:8); 4th--"the Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10);[46] 6th--"murders" (Rev. 9:21; cf. 21:8); 7th--"sexual immorality" (Rev. 2:14; cf. 2:20; 9:21; 21:8); 8th--"thefts" (Rev. 9:21); 9th--"liars" (Rev. 21:8).
John was shown a future day when "the time" would "come for judging the dead." He wrote, "Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm" (Rev. 11:18-19). The heavenly representation of the earthly ark of the covenant, which contained the Ten Commandments, will evidently play some part in the final judgment of the world when all will stand before God and His holy law (James 2:8-13; cf. Eccl. 12:13-14). The reference to "flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm" is borrowed from language used to describe the celestial manifestations on Mount Sinai surrounding God's writing of the Ten Commandments with His own finger (Exod. 19:16-19).
Revelation 13 describes the world's last great crisis, the battle of Armageddon, a great spiritual battle on earth waged by those who have the mark of the beast against God's final covenant people, His remnant.
Bracketing both sides of Revelation's portrayal of that great spiritual conflagration is a description of the character of God's final people as those who "keep God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus," and "who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus" (Rev. 12:17; 14:12). In view of Revelation's many allusions to the Ten Commandments, it would be hard to argue that these texts do not have prominently in mind both the Ten Commandments and the law's characteristic call to obedience (Deut. 6:1-2,5-6; 11:1,13-14,22-24).
Revelation 14:7 is God's response to the world's final spiritual battle and test described in Revelation 13. In Revelation 13 an unholy trinity of the symbolic dragon, sea beast, and land beast metaphorically parallels the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They seek the loyalty, allegiance, and worship of the whole world. Seven times Revelation 13-14 refer to the unholy trinity's claim to the world's worship and the global lemming-like response. By contrast, in Revelation 14:7 God makes a single final appeal to the world for the worship that rightfully belongs to Him: "Worship Him who made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and the fountains of water." This is a direct allusion to the fourth commandment regarding the seventh-day Sabbath recorded in Exodus 20:8-11, particularly the phrase, "In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them." After examining the many verbal, thematic, and structural parallels between these two references, Jon Paulien concludes: "The cumulative evidence is so strong that an interpreter could conclude that there is no direct allusion to the Old Testament in Revelation that is more certain than the allusion to the fourth commandment in Rev 14:7. When the author of Revelation describes God's final appeal to the human race in the context of the end-time deception, he does so in terms of a call to worship the creator in the context of the fourth commandment."[47]
In Revelation 15 John sees a vision of the heavenly "tabernacle of the Testimony" (Rev. 15:5). Once again the Ten Commandments are in view. The NIV Study Bible note on "the temple of the Testimony" in this verse says, "It was so named because the ancient tent contained the two tables of the Testimony brought down from Mount Sinai (Ex. 32:15; 38:21; Dt. 10:5)."[48] The vision of Revelation 15 also contains a proleptic snapshot of those from every nation who by the virtue of the "righteous acts" of God have gained the ultimate victory over the spiritual forces of evil and hence stand eternally secure on the heavenly sea of glass. It describes them singing the historically old covenant and experientially new covenant "song of Moses the servant of God," and the historically and experientially new covenant "song of the Lamb" (Rev. 15:3). Sung by the experientially new covenant believers from both historical eras, the song consists of a triumphant chorus of praise that represents the common passion and focus of them all: "Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God almighty. Just and true are your ways, King of the ages. Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed" (Rev. 15:3-4).
The phrase "All nations will come and worship before you" is borrowed from a similar vision of eternity God gave to the prophet Isaiah: "'As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,' declares the Lord, 'so will your name and descendants endure. From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down [in worship] before me,' says the Lord" (Isa. 66:22-23). Isaiah describes the redeemed of all ages assembling to worship God from one Sabbath to another in eternity. When the book of Revelation pictures those who refuse to receive the mark of the beast, it references Isaiah's description of God's people in the new earth who will worship God throughout eternity from one Sabbath to another.[49]
Revelation 17-18 describes a harlot and city that epitomizes the religious-political system that both opposes and counterfeits God's true covenant people in the last days. Though possessing a near fanatical religious zeal, this system is described as "drunk with the blood of the saints" (Rev. 17:6). This counterfeit system is graphically described as being "dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet, and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls!" (Rev. 18:16; cf. 17:3-5). J. Massyngberde Ford, among others, has noted that this garb parallels the high priest's garb in the Old Testament, and thus "this harlot is no 'commoner'; she appears to be of the priestly class," a "priest harlot," for "the garments for the priests have similar colors gold, blue, purple and scarlet, fine linen; cf. Exode 28:5,15,23."[50] There was one glaring difference, however-the blue! The high priest's garment was predominately blue: "Make the robe of the ephod entirely of blue cloth" (Exod. 28:31; cf. 39:22-31). And why is the omission of blue on the harlot's garment so significant in Revelation 17? God assigned the color blue a very specific meaning in the covenant garb of the Old Testament: "Make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. You will have these tassels to look at and will remember all the commands of the Lord, that you may obey them....Then you will remember to obey all my commands and will be consecrated to your God" (Num. 15:37-40). The fact that the counterfeit priest in this symbolic portrayal of the final spiritual conflict wears no blue seems to represent the contrast between this counterfeit religious system and the true covenant people described in Revelation 12:17 and 14:12 as those who not only "hold to the testimony of Jesus" and "remain faithful to Jesus," but who also "obey God's commandments." It warns of a counterfeit religious system with a leader who will pose as the world's spiritual high priest, but without a commitment to the commandments of God. Compare this with a parallel warning in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9 where Paul calls the antichrist "the man of lawlessness"-"the lawless one" who works through "the secret power of lawlessness" to deceive many.
The Sabbath-God's Enduring Covenant Sign
The Sabbath was 1) blessed and made holy by God at creation; 2) reiterated by God in Exodus 16 prior to the initiation of the Sinai covenant; 3) embedded in the heart of His Ten Commandments; 4) invested by God with significance as a sign between Him and His covenant people; and 5) observed by the apostles and by Jesus Himself whose numerous miracles on that day revealed its full meaning. And the Sabbath will be among the commandments obeyed by God's final covenant people who experience earth's last great spiritual crisis and are opposed and oppressed by a counterfeit religious system. It is a day when all nations will worship God in the earth made new. The following table of the covenant signs shows the duration of their sign significance indicated by arrows:
1. Covenant Sign
a) Rainbow
b) Circumcision
c) Sabbath
2. Creation
a)
b)
c) ==> ==> ==>
3. Old Testament Era
a) ==> ==> ==>
b) ==> ==> ==>
c) ==> ==> ==>
4. New Testament Era
a) ==> ==> ==>
b)
c) ==> ==> ==>
5. New Earth
a) ? ? ?
b)
c) ==> ==> ==>
Responses to Several Practical Concerns Regarding the Spiritual Effect of Sabbath Observance
Much of the discussion of the old and new covenants, and most if not all discussion of the continuing applicability of the Ten Commandments, seems ultimately to boil down to a single question-is it necessary to still observe the seventh-day Sabbath? Besides some of the biblical issues that have been discussed above, there are a number of practical concerns and questions that some have regarding whether the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath of the fourth commandment in the new covenant historical era would contribute positively or negatively toward the development of a deepening spiritual experience with Christ (i.e., a new covenant experience). Several of those concerns are addressed below.
There seems to be a concern among some in the Christian world that observing the biblical Sabbath as enjoined in the fourth commandment would discourage a believer from having a worshipful spirit and continual communion with God during the remainder of the week. However, it did not have such a detrimental effect on Moses and the prophets, on the 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal in Elijah's day, and on the many others whom the author of Hebrews 11 said he did "not have time to tell about" in his representative list of Old Testament believers. All of these were seventh-day Sabbath keepers who were honored for exercising faith in God even unto death and became heirs of the righteousness that comes by faith. Jesus's observance of the Sabbath didn't restrict His spiritual experience or limit His time meditating on His heavenly Father and on God's will for Him. It was these Sabbath keepers' "delight" to meditate on spiritual things "day and night," "when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up" (Ps. 1:2; Deut. 6:7).
Many in the Christian world appear to believe that worshiping God on the seventh day of the week represents legalism and spiritual bondage. But there is no proclivity toward legalism or spiritual bondage built into the seventh-day Sabbath as God instituted it at creation and embedded it in His Ten Commandments. Quite the opposite. The Sabbath, as designed by God and supervised by the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer, is calculated to deliver God's covenant people from workaholism and to contribute toward the development of an ever growing and deepening new covenant experience that finds its greatest joy and freedom in God.
There are some who seem to believe that the Ten Commandments, and the Sabbath in particular, contributed toward the legalism of the Israelites of the historical old covenant era who did not attain to righteousness "because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works" (Rom. 9:32). And yet no one would suggest that the gospel taught in the New Testament era should be made responsible for the spiritual lethargy of the "dark ages" or for the general unbelief that will prevail in the final generation as suggested by Jesus's plaintive query: "When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8). God would not invite people into a covenant that would prevent them from entering the kingdom of God and growing in sanctification.
It is a delusion to think that by refusing to observe the seventh-day Sabbath believers thereby insulate themselves from faithless legalism. Choosing not to observe the Sabbath can be as potentially legalistic in motivation as a choice to observe it could be. Choosing to observe the seventh-day Sabbath according to the fourth commandment can indeed be, and was intended by God to be, an experientially new covenant, loving response to God's grace, an act of "obedience that comes from faith" (Rom. 1:5).
Some seem to consider it more spiritual, more new covenant, to watch videos late into Saturday night, go to church the next morning, and then watch sports events, do chores, go shopping, work at the office, or attend a movie on Sunday afternoon, than it is to observe the seventh-day Sabbath of the fourth commandment. And while the seventh-day Sabbath as a day of worship may indeed be observed legalistically, as may the observance of any other day, there is a spiritual freedom provided in laying aside secular activities at Friday sundown in order to engage worshipful pursuits, with minds directed toward God, family, serving others, and healthful rest until sundown on Saturday as the Sabbath commandment envisions and Jesus's own practice exemplifies.
Summary
The three covenant signs given in Scripture were initiated by God at various times--the rainbow at the time of Noah, circumcision with Abraham, and the Sabbath at creation. The rainbow appears to have no scriptural terminus point--visions of Ezekiel and John about the rainbow around God's throne suggest that the rainbow may continue through eternity as a sign that God will forever remain true to His covenant promises. Circumcision, though referred to as an everlasting ordinance, clearly had a terminal point in the times of the New Testament. Circumcision as an initiation ceremony into covenant relation with God from the time of Abraham has been replaced in New Testament times with the ceremony of baptism, though baptism is never referred to specifically as a covenant sign. The Sabbath, instituted at creation as a universal blessing for humanity, was invested with special covenant sign significance for Israel, with whom the new covenant was also specifically made. The true Israel of God has been assessed throughout both Old and New Testament periods not on the basis of genealogy but on the basis of faith and "the obedience that comes from faith." Though there is a sharp controversy in the New Testament over the terminus of circumcision, there is no such debate about Sabbath observance. Isaiah and the book of Revelation envision Sabbath observance in the new earth, suggesting that the Sabbath will continue throughout eternity as a covenant sign that God both created and makes holy His eternally redeemed people.
Notes: