Bishop's Epistle: July 2019

Monday, July 15, 2019

OLD TESTAMENT PLURALS (Answering Objections to Modalism)

The Pluralists’ Objection

The Pluralists feel that in the plural pronouns of the Old Testament (Gen 1:26; 11:7 and Isa 6:8) they have found an indication of a plurality of persons within the Godhead. In this chapter we will deal with each of these three passages in turn.

Genesis 1:26

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

According to the teaching of the Pluralists, the plural pronouns “us” and “our” in this text prove that God is more than one person. According to this line of reasoning, it is Father God who is speaking to the other two persons of the Godhead (if one is a Trinitarian). So, God the Father says to God the Son, and to God the Holy Spirit “Let Us make man in Our image, and after Our likeness.” If the Pluralist is an Arian or Binitarian, then one sees the Father speaking to the Son.

Modalism’s Response

The Trinitarian Dilemmas
There are many problems created by this line of reasoning, the least of which is not the very next verse in the passage.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” —Genesis 1:27.

In v27 God is referenced by the single pronouns “his” and “he.” So, then, the same argument which would make God a plurality of persons in v26, because of the plural pronouns, would make Him a single person in v27, by virtue of the single pronouns. Consistency is a virtue that the Pluralists’ dogma cannot afford. To remain consistent with the evidence of the number of the pronouns, there is a stalemate produced between vv26 and 27. That is to say: One cannot argue that the plural pronouns of v26 prove a plurality of persons, if one is not prepared to argue that the single pronouns of v27 prove a single solitary person. Since neither Trinitarianism, Binitarianism nor Arianism are prepared to be consistent with their “pronoun” argument, the weakness of their position becomes apparent.

A more serious dilemma is created by the Pluralists’ interpretation of Genesis 1:26, in that God the Father is given accomplices in creation. We see the predicament created by this when Isaiah 44:24 is presented: “I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.” Here, Yahweh (“LORD” in all caps) states clearly that He alone made the heavens and the earth. Now, according to Trinitarian, Binitarian and Arian dogma, He did not do it alone, but the “Us” were present to assist Him. If there were an “Us” participating in the act of creation, then Isaiah must be misquoting Yahweh. Or, Yahweh is taking credit for work that He did not do alone, in which case He would be lying. Of course, we know the truth: Yahweh created all things by Himself, without the aid or assistance of anyone else. Therefore, the Pluralistsʼ interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is in error, and another understanding must be sought.

The Solution — Plurality of Majesty

According to Isaiah 44:24 there is one single creator of all things in heaven and earth: “I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.” Notice the words in this text” “I, “alone,” and “myself.” There are no accomplices recognized here. The quandary presented by Genesis 1:26 and Isaiah 44:24 is solved when one considers Ephesians 1:11, “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:” Amazing!

From Paulʼs letter to the Ephesians we are told that God “worketh all things” after counseling with His own will. In Genesis 1:26 Yahweh is counseling with someone, this is true. The question is: Who? Whomever Yahweh is counseling with took part in the creation of mankind. Since we have a clear testimony from Yahweh Himself (Isaiah 44:24), that He alone created, we must conclude that: If Yahweh counseled with anyone concerning creation, it would have been Himself. Interestingly enough, this is exactly the Apostle Paulʼs understanding; for, he wrote to the Ephesians that God created after taking counsel with Himself. So, then, the question: To whom was God speaking in Genesis 1:26 (when he said: “let us make man”) would be answered by Ephesians 1:11, where it is stated that He was counseling with His own will. If one is unhappy with the phrase "Plurality of Majesty" then I might say that the Hebrew divines favored a "Plural of Self-Deliberation”; which, to me, amounts to the same thing. Just Amazing!

The plural pronouns employed by Yahweh is a common usage of speech among monarchs and rulers. This is called the Plurality Of Majesty. The majestic status of a king is far above that of his subjects, so much so, that a king may commonly speak of himself in the plural, thus, the Plurality of Majesty.

Examples of the Plurality of Majesty may be seen in many places throughout Scripture; but, especially, in Ezra 4:11ff and Daniel 2:36. In the book of Ezra 4:11-18 we read the narrative of a letter being sent to king Artaxerxes. In v11 the prophet Ezra writes the following: “This is the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king.” Then in v18 the King is speaking concerning the letter and states: “the letter which ye sent unto us...” in this case the Plurality of Majesty is demonstrated, in that the king refers to himself in the plural. Another example is Daniel 2:36. In this passage Daniel refers to himself in the plural, when he comes before Nebuchadnezzar, to tell the king of the dream and its interpretation. Daniel said, “This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation before the king.” Notice that Daniel says: “WE will tell...” In this place Daniel employs the Plurality of Majesty in reference to himself.

As we return to the passage in question (Genesis 1:26 and 27) an interesting point should be made; namely, in v26 God is speaking of Himself, while in v27 God is being spoken about. In other words, in v26 God speaks in the first person, in the Plurality of Majesty; while in v27 God is spoken of in the third person singular. This would be quite natural, if the Plurality of Majesty is the correct understanding. Although Moses recorded the words of Yahweh with the plural pronouns, he did not have the understanding that these plural pronouns indicated plural persons; for when he gave commentary on the words of Yahweh, he used single pronouns for God. Moses understood the Plurality of Majesty; so that when he gave commentary on the words of Yahweh, he wrote, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.” The important point to note here, is that God is never referenced with plural second or third person pronouns such as “Ye” (You all) or “Their.” When plural pronouns are used for God it is always when He is referencing Himself, thus, the Plurality of Majesty.

Genesis 11:7

“Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one anotherʼs speech.”

According to Trinitarian Pluralists, the LORD (Yahweh) is speaking to the other two persons of the Trinity, or, if Arian or Binitarian (those who believe in two persons), to the Son.

Modalism’s Response

The Pluralists, whether they be Trinitarian, Binitarian or Arian, defeat themselves with this line of reasoning. And this is how: The word “LORD,” from v6, is in all capital letters: which means it is the Tetragramaton (the four letters YHWH, which stand for the name of God).

Notice, then, that Yahweh says; “Let Us...”
If the Pluralists are correct, Yahweh is speaking to OTHERS.
Since they (especially the Trinitarian) believe Yahweh is the group name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they defeat their own argument.

We say that the Pluralists defeat their own argument in this line of reasoning, because those spoken to would, of necessity, not be Yahweh: the preceding verse said “And the LORD (Yahweh) said,...” So the LORD (Yahweh) said to others, who are not, themselves, Yahweh, “Let us go down...”

Depending upon the school of Pluralists in this discussion, Yahweh is either the group name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or the name of God the Father. Either way, the argument of plurality of persons within the Godhead being proven by the plural pronouns defeats itself. Either Yahweh (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is speaking to the Angels (or a multitude of other ideas) who are not Yahweh; or Yahweh, the Father, is speaking to the Son and/or the Holy Spirit, who are not Yahweh. The weight of this is felt when we discover: If one is not Yahweh, then not God. This is made clear from the following texts:

Exodus 6:3 “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; but by my name JEHOVAH (Yahweh) was I not known to them.”
Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel; The LORD our God is one LORD:” (Hebrew: The Yahweh our Elohim is one Yahweh.)

Either way, whether Yahweh is speaking to angels or speaking to the Son and/or the Holy Spirit (who are not Yahweh) Trinitarianism, Binitarianism, Arianism, and like minded isms, are defeated by their own argument, in that other persons of the Godhead are not found here.

The plain truth of this narrative is this: Only one came down to see the work of manʼs hands (Genesis 11:8). The one that did come and scattered man upon the face of the earth was Yahweh Himself. Where were the “Us?” The answer is: they were never there. God counsels with His own will, according to Ephesians 1:11, “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:”

From whom would the God of all the universe seek counsel? Who would be His equal that He would value his, or her, opinion? This is another example of Yahweh speaking of Himself in the plural, to show power and majesty. This use of language is called the Plurality of Majesty (also called the Plurality of Plentitude) and is seen in Genesis 1:26; Daniel 2:36; Ezra 4: 11, 18.

III. Isaiah 6:8

“Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”

Again, those who wish to find “persons” in the Godhead point to this passage as a proof text. Here, they hope to find their persons of Trinitarianism, and/or Binitarianism, and/orArianism , etc.

Modalism’s Response:

This passage from Isaiah is of a different nature than the plural pronoun passages from Genesis 1:26 and 11:7, which we have reviewed in our preceding comments. We say that this passage from Isaiah is different, because in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7, God speaks of Himself in the plural; however, here, in Isaiah 6:8, God speaks of Himself in the singular and uses the word “I.” Notice, that when Isaiah quotes the words of the LORD he says that the LORD said “Whom shall I send, ...”

When one observes the law of context (which one must), we discover the following things from this passage:

There is one speaker;
The terms “I,” and “us,” are in the same statement;
The “us” must mean the LORD and others.

By looking at the context of the Scripture under consideration we must ask, “Who are the ʻUS?ʼ” Of course the Bible is clear in giving the answer to our question, “Who are the ʻUSʼ?” The answer is found in Isaiah 6: 1-2, which is the introduction to our narrative.

“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.” (Isaiah 6:1-2).

In these two verses the “Us” are identified as:

1. The LORD (YHWH),
2. His train (His following),
3. The Seraphim.

I might be so bold, at this point, to venture an explanation as to why such a statement was made, or such a question would be asked by Yahweh. Just why did Yahweh ask, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” The answer is twofold: First, to show the benefactor as Yahweh Himself, for He asked, “Whom shall I send... .” Only one is sending in power and might (Ps 62:11; 65:6; 121:1-8). Second, to show the beneficiary, for Yahweh asked: “Who will go for us?” Therefore the benefactor sends the sent in behalf of all of Heaven: the “Us.” (See, 1 Cor 6:3; 1 Pet 1:12; Heb 12:22.) So, then, in Isaiah 6:8, Yahweh sent Isaiah the prophet to preach to the world in behalf of the “Us:” namely, those who inhabit heaven, i.e. the train (those who follow the King) and the Seraphim.

There are no plurality of persons in the Godhead seen in this passage, or in any other plurals of the Old Testament. The smoke and mirrors that have been used for centuries by the Pluralist theologians, of all stripes, are but tools of religious prevaricators, to lead astray those who do not care enough to vet their claims.

Apostolically Speaking;
☩☩ Jerry L Hayes
(Mar David Ignatius)

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

Read other Essays from the pen of the Bishop on the subject of the Godhead:

Godhead Theology is a study of Christian Godhead theology. ... Was He God or not? In Godhead Theology Bishop Jerry Hayes follows that debate through the first 300 years of the Church's history. Our book is in five sections: Section One ... demonstrates Modalistic Monarchianism as the original orthodoxy of the Chruch; Section Two introduces the Apostolic Creed ... ; Section Three is an affirmation of Modalistic Monarchianism; Section Four is Modalism's responses to objection from the pluralists Trinitarians, Binitarians, Arians and Semi-Arians. Included are two comprehensive indexes: Subject Index and Scripture Index. 613 pages.

Own this classic book today by ordering from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-4

The Jesus Debate is a written debate between Bishop Jerry Hayes and Prof. Willy Olmo. This book contains all papers submitted between this two knowledgeable men. Bishop Hayes affirms and defends the Oneness of God; Prof. Olmo affirms and defends Arian Unitarianism.

Own this classic debate by ordering from the link provided here:
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Debate-Modalism-Arianism-Unitarianism/dp/1484036670/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-6

The Hayes vs Mulbah Debate is a formal written debate on the subject of the Godhead, between Bishop Jerry L Hayes (Onenessarian) and Minister Andrew Mulbah (Trinitarian). This work contains the debate in its entirety plus other related material. Included are the two Creeds from which both disputants argue their respective views: The Apostolic Creed (the statement of faith for the Oneness/Modalistic Monarchian theology) and the Athanasian Creed (the official statement of faith for the Trinitarian theology).

Own this remarkable debate today, by ordering it from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Hayes-Mulbah-Debate-Oneness-Trinity/dp/1727358953/ref=sr_1_8?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-8

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY

PURCHASING OUR BOOKS OF YOUR LIBRARY

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

Monday, July 1, 2019

CHRISTIANITY AND THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH, Chapter Two, "The Relationship Of The Ten Commandments With The Mosaic Law"

The Relationship of the Ten Commandments With the Mosaic Law

Here, we must consider the relationship of the Ten Commandments (the Decalogue) to the Mosaic Law. (Of course, the terms “Mosaic Law” and “Mosaic Covenant” are synonymous and may be used interchangeably in this writing.) This part of our investigation is important because it is argued that since the Ten Commandments reflect the Moral Law of God, they remain in effect in the Church. We often hear the mantra: “Nothing passes the Cross except the Decalogue.” If this is true the command to keep the seventh day Sabbath remains in effect.

It is often posited that the Mosaic Law is divided into three parts: moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. It is, then, asserted that the first remains in effect while the last two (civil and ceremonial law) are abolished by the cross. While the dissecting of the Law of Moses into three parts helps the Bible student to arrange the Law of Moses into categories, this labeling is nowhere suggested in Holy Scripture and creates a false dichotomy when representing what was abolished by the cross and what is to be retained by the Lord’s church. The truth is: All has been abolished; Nothing has been retained.

The Law of Moses is a unitary corpus and was never fragmented into various parts, but was always viewed as one cohesive, unified whole. One had to keep all the commandments of the Law to receive of its benefits (Galatians 3:10-12). Moses said, "Cursed be he that does not confirm all the words of this law to do them" (Deuteronomy 27:26). The Lord said through Jeremiah, "Cursed be the man that obeys not the words of this covenant, ...Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you" (Jeremiah 11:3-4; see also Galatians 3:10). James, our Lord’s half brother, summed it up best when he said, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10; See also v. 11). To break a “ceremonial” law was viewed to be the same offense as breaking a “moral” law. Perfect obedience was demanded to all the commands of the covenant, because it was a unified whole.

Seeing that the Ten Commandments are the platform for the 613 commandments of the Mosaic Law (the Hebrews had enlarged upon the Ten Commandments to arrive at a list of 613 laws), and arguably the very heart of the Mosaic Covenant, they too were abolished at Calvary.

Dead To The Law Includes Death To The Decalogue

Does being “dead to the law” mean being dead to the Ten Commandments, as well? Paul settles this question in his letter to the Romans. To the Romans Paul identifies the Decalogue as included in the “law” to which Christians are dead by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. He does it by quoting the last of the Ten Commandments, showing that followers of Christ are delivered from these particular ordinances: “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” —Romans 7:4-7

Paul’s letter to the Corinthians included the same admonition concerning the Ten Commandments: “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was make glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. —2 Corinthians 3:6-11

According to the Apostle Paul, then, we are not under the Decalogue: i.e. that which is “written and engraven in stones.” We are under the commandments of the New Covenant (Testament), which does, however, happen to contain similarities to nine of the Ten Commandments.

1st Commandment, Old Testament:

“I am the LORD thy God, … Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:2,3)

1st Commandment, New Testament:

“…Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. ” (Matthew 4:10/Luke 4:8)

2nd Commandment, Old Testament:

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, … lt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:”(Exodus 20:4-6)

2nd Commandment, New Testament:

“But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols…” (Acts 15:20)

3rd Commandment, Old Testament:

“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7)

3rd Commandment, New Testament:

“…that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” (1 Timothy 6:1)

4th Commandment Old Testament:

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, …” (Exodus 20:8-11)

4th Commandment, New Testament

This commandment is not repeated in the New Testament.

5th Commandment, Old Testament:

“Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.” (Exodus 20:12)

5th Commandment, New Testament:

“Honour thy father and thy mother…” (Matthew 19:19/Mark 10:19/Luke 18:20)

6th Commandment, Old Testament:

“Thou shalt not kill (murder).” (Exodus 20:13)

6th Commandment, New Testament:

“…Thou shalt not kill…” (Romans 13:9)

7th Commandment, Old Testament:

“Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14)

7th Commandment, New Testament:

“Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery…”
(Matthew 19:18/Mark 10:19/Luke 18:20)

8th Commandment, Old Testament:

“Thou shalt not steal.” (Exodus 20:15)

8th Commandment, New Testament:

“Thou shalt not steal . . ” (Matthew 19:18/Romans 13:9)

9th Commandment, Old Testament:

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” (Exodus 20:16)

9th Commandment, New Testament:

“…Thou shalt not bear false witness…” (Matthew 19:18/Romans 13:9)

10th Commandment, Old Testament:

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour’s.” (Exodus 20:17)

10th Commandment, New Testament:

“But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;” (Ephesians 5:3)

The abolition of the Old Covenant, in its entirety, was also foretold by Moses. After he came down (from being with God, on Mt Sinai) with the Ten Commandments, Moses wore a veil to prevent the Israelites from seeing the fading reflection of God's glory on his face, which presaged the future obsolescence and complete abolition of the Old Covenant (cf Exodus 34:27-35 with 2 Corinthians 3:6-13). The ministration of death “written and engraved on stones,” referenced in 2 Corinthians 3:7, refers to the Old Covenant law of Moses. That which is being abolished, in v13 (“And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished”) refers to the Old Covenant becoming obsolete and being abolished. Which covenant is to be replaced with a completely New Testament.

“Could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.” —Better, “look on the end of that which was perishing.” “Literally, the words state the fact, they could not see how the perishing glory ended. In the interpretation of the parable St. Paul seems to say that what was true of those older Israelites was true also of their descendants. They could not see the true end of the perishing system of the Law, its aim, purport, consummation. … Had their eyes been open, they would have seen in the fading away of the old glory of the decaying “letter” the dawn of a glory that excelled it. And in the thought that this was the true “end” of the Law we find the ground for the Apostle’s assertion that he used great plainness of speech. He had no need to veil his face or his meaning, for he had no fear lest the glory of the gospel of which he was a minister should fade away.” —Ellicott.

“Could not stedfastly look”: “Could not gaze intently upon (ἀτενίσαι atenisai). They could not clearly discern it; there was obscurity arising from the fact of the designed concealment. He did not intend that they should clearly see the full purport and design of the institutions which he established.

“To the end” (εἰς τὸ τέλος eis to telos). Unto the end, purpose, design, or ultimate result of the Law which he established. …There was a glory and splendor in that which the institutions of Moses typified, which the children of Israel were not permitted then to behold. There was a splendor and luster in the face of Moses, which they could not gaze upon, and therefore he put a veil over it to diminish its intense brightness. In like manner there was a glory and splendor in the ultimate design and scope of his institutions, in that to which they referred, which they were not then "able," that is, prepared to look on, and the exceeding brightness of which he of design concealed. This was done by obscure types and figures, that resembled a veil thrown over a dazzling and splendid object.

“The word ‘end,’ then, I suppose, does not refer to termination, or close, but to the ‘design, scope, or purpose’ of the Mosaic institutions; to that which they were intended to introduce and adumbrate. that end was the Messiah, and the glory of his institutions: ‘Christ is the end of the Law.’ And the meaning of Paul, I take to be, is, that there was a splendor and a glory in the gospel which the Mosaic institutions were designed to typify, which was so great that the children of Israel were not fully prepared to see it, and that he designedly threw over that glory the veil of obscure types and figures; as he threw over his face a veil that partially concealed its splendor. Thus, interpreted there is a consistency in the entire passage, and very great beauty. Paul, in the following verses, proceeds to state that the veil to the view of the Jews of his time was not removed; that they still looked to the obscure types and institutions of the Mosaic Law rather than on the glory which they were designed to adumbrate; as if they should choose to look upon the veil on the face of Moses rather than on the splendor which it concealed.

"Of that which is abolished” - Or rather to be abolished, τοῦ καταργουμένου to katargoumenou), whose nature, design, and intention it was that it should be abolished. It was never designed to be permanent; and Paul speaks of it here as a thing that was known and indisputable that the Mosaic institutions were designed to be abolished.” —Barnes

Conclusion

Paul is contrasting the Old and the New Covenants here, distinguishing between the ministries under each. No one could satisfy the demands of the law under the Old Covenant, so it condemned them to death (cf Psalms 143:1-2; Romans 3:19-20; 7:9-11; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Galatians 3:10-11). The ministry of the Spirit under the New Covenant is entirely different, because the New Covenant is a covenant of grace, entered into through the atoning death of Jesus, Who has made salvation possible for all who believe on Him; which was impossible under the Old Covenant (cf 2 Corinthians 3:8-11; with Acts 13:38-39; Romans 3:21-26; 7:5-6; 8:1-4; Galatians 2:16).

So, then, not only were the civil and ceremonial laws abolished by the New Covenant, but the moral law (the Ten Commandments) as well. Now, mark this well, it is not that God abolished His moral standard for man; only the written contract from Mt Sinai was abolished. The Christian is under a new contract which reintroduces the moral standards of God. Yahweh’s moral standards never change and have been restated in the Christian Scriptures for the New Covenant (see the list above). Nine of the ten commands are reinstitute for the New Covenant. Only the 4th Commandment, concerning keeping the Sabbath, is not stipulated in God’s new contract with the New Israel of Faith (i.e. the Church).

One might reason: Since the moral standards of Yahweh are the same, should we not retain the more law of the Old Covenant (i.e. the Decalogue)? No. Because the Decalogue is the written contract God had with His former people. That contract is now made void through their disobedience (Jer 31:31-32). Because for the very reason of their disobedience, the prophet Hosea foretold of the time when the Mosaic Law, along with its sabbaths days, would be abolished: “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her Sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” —Hosea 2:11

Concerning the moral law of both covenants, an analogy may help us better understand: “It can be compared to a real estate contract. A real estate agent makes two contracts for two men who are buying two different houses. Although both contracts will contain similar elements and language, they are indeed two different contracts. The two contracts will also have many differences between them. They may both include information such as payment, lot space, or time of purchase, but they will have differences. The one man is not subject to the other's contract, neither vice-versa. The Mosaic Covenant is not the church's covenant. It contains many similar elements, but it has many differences. We are not to obey a commandment from the Law simply because there is a similar command in our covenant. We are only subject to the terms of our own covenant, i.e. the New Covenant.” (Quote adapted from Theosophical Ruminations, Jason Dulle)

Apostolically Speaking,
☩☩ Jerry L Hayes
(Mar David Ignatius)

This has been Chapter Two of a two chapter series on how the Christian should respond to the 7th day Sabbath. Be sure to read Chapter One at the link provided here:

Christianity's Association With The 7th Day Sabbath
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/07/christianity-and-seventh-day-sabbath.html

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

Hello friends, I am a full time biblical researcher. I rely on freewill love offerings (from those of you who benefit from my work) and book sales for my support. Would you please consider leaving a small donation at the link provided here? Thank you for your support. -JLH

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4EXSWA2A47ARC

Apologia is a polemical work of apologetics in the defense of Christian sacred days. Our focus is Sunday worship, Easter and Christmas. There has been little written in the line of a strong apologia for the observance to the traditional times. Bishop Hayes offers his work "Apologia, A Defense of Christian Sacred Days" to meet that need. This book establishes why Christians have observed Sunday as their primary day of worship right out of the gate. Also, within the pages of "Apologia" the reader will discover the true meaning of the terms 'Easter" and "Christmas". Both terms have come under sustained attack in recent years from an element that is antagonistic to traditional Christianity. Bishop Jerry L Hayes comes to the defense of historical Christianity in this work that is destined to become a classic. We know you will want to recommend "Apologia, A Defense of Christian Sacred Days" to all your friends and family.
Order your personal copy today from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Apologia-Defense-Christian-Sacred-Days/dp/1099666589/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Apologia%2C+Hayes&qid=1558905902&s=books&sr=1-1

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY PURCHASING MY BOOKS FOR YOUR LIBRARY. -JLH

Read more essays from the pen of the Bishop on Christian holy days at the links provided here:

Defending Easter
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/04/defending-easter.html

Sunday Worship (A Discussion With Amú)
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/05/sunday-worship-discussion-with-amu.html

The Sign of Jonah, Defending Good Friday

http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-sign-of-jonah.html

Christian Day of Worship: Chapter One, "The first Day of the Week"
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-christians-day-of-worship.html

Christian Day of Worship: Chapter Two, "The Eighth Day"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-christian-day-of-worship-chapter.html

Christian Day of Worship:: Chapter Three, "The Lord's Day: Sunday"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-christian-day-of-worship-chapter_1.html

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

CHRISTIANITY AND THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH, Chapter One, "Christianity's Association With The 7th Day Sabbath"

Christianity’s Association

With the Seventh Day Sabbath

Christianity is a relationship with the Almighty. In that sense it stands apart from all other religions of the earth. Further, it is relationship which moves Christianity beyond the ground of mere religion. The sacred scriptures of our faith introduce the Creator God as “Father.” This cognomen of the Deity speaks to us of a particular relationship. By contrast: of Islam’s 99 touted names of Allah, not one of them is “Father.”

At the very foundation of the relationship between Christians and their Creator is the inviolable covenant brought into effect by the death of its Testator. (Heb 9:6, for where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.)

Yahweh, speaking through the prophet Jeremiah, foretold of this great covenant when that prophet wrote: “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: 32 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: …” (Jeremiah 31:31-32). From this we are to understand that the Mosaic Covenant from Mt Sinai was never intended to be permanent. But was only a schoolmaster to bring us to the Christ of a new and better covenant (Galatians 3:24).

Yahweh is a covenant God. By that we mean that He has chosen to deal with His people through a series of covenants that are agreements (contracts) between Himself and the people with whom He has entered the covenant. Each covenant is different, with diverse agreements and symbols: E.g., the Rainbow was the sign of the Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9:13), circumcision for the Abrahamic Covenant (Exodus 31:13, 17; Ezekiel 20:12, 20), the seventh day Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 20:12) and the Holy Eucharist is the sign of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:26-30; 1 Corinthians 11:23-33; Acts 20:7). The superiority of the New Covenant (the Christians’ covenant), over all covenants that came before, is attested by the eternal life of its Testator, who died—but is alive forevermore (Hebrews 8:6-13; 10:16-17; 12:24; 13:20).

In a work, such as the one we are embarking upon, where we are examining the sacred days of the faith, it behoves us to determine what relationship Christians should have, if any, with the sacred day/days of the former Mosaic Covenant. Especially when the Word of God is clear that the New Covenant of the Christians has abrogated the former.

The letter to the Hebrews states: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13). Here, “old” means to abrogate, annul, be antiquated, no longer in force, to be obsolete, out of date.

Further, in the parable of old and new cloth and wineskins - (bottles [KJV], are wineskins, Matthew 9:14-17; Mark 2:22-26; Luke 5: 36-39), Jesus foretells the abolition of the Old Covenant from Mt. Sinai and its complete replacement with the New Covenant from Mt. Calvary. The old garment and wineskins symbolize the Old Covenant under the law of Moses, which kept everyone bound in bondage to sin. The Old Covenant was powerless to save (cf Romans 3:20; 7:14-23; 1 Corinthians 15:56-57). In using the principles of new cloth as a patch upon an old garment tearing away more, and new wine bursting old wineskins, Jesus made it clear that He would not be patching up the worn-out Old Covenant, but that He would be replacing it in its entirety with a completely New Covenant (cf Luke 4:17-21; Romans 3:21-22; Galatians 3:22-26).

The Seventh Day Sabbath’s Relationship With the Mosaic Covenant

The keeping of the Sabbath was not known to God’s people before the giving of the Law by Moses. Nehemiah, speaking to God concerning Israel, says: [You gave] “right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: And made known to them your holy Sabbath, and commanded them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses your servant” (Nehemiah 9:13-14). Yahweh, himself, stated the same: “Moreover also I gave them [Israel] my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctifies them” (Ezekiel 20:12).

The relationship, then, between the Sabbath and the Mosaic Covenant was that it was “a sign” to the people of that particular covenant, i.e. the Israelites. We should review this most important passage from Exodus: “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: "Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you. You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.. Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed" (Exodus 31:13-17, NKJV).

The Sabbath was a visible sign to test Israel’s obedience to the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 16:4-5, Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no. 5 And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.). The only way the Sabbath could be a sign is if it was unique to Israel, and unique to the Mosaic Covenant. If it was universal, or predated the Mosaic Covenant, it was not unique, and could hardly be classified as a unique sign between Yahweh and Israel. The seventh day rest as the sign of the covenant explains why the penalty for profaning the Sabbath—death—was so severe (Exodus 31:14; Numbers 15:32-36; Jeremiah 17:19-27). Israel's observance of the Sabbath indicated her loyalty to Yahweh, while breaking the Sabbath indicated her treachery against Yahweh and His covenant.

Another relationship between the Mosaic Covenant and the seventh day Sabbath was that the observance of the Sabbath rest was to remind the Israelites they were slaves in Egypt, but are now delivered. Deuteronomy 5:15 declares: "And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day” (NKJV). It is a true saying that: “Anytime we read the word ‘therefore’ we should determine what it is there for.” So, then, taking that advise we determine that the Israelites were commanded to keep the Sabbath because they were slaves ‘in the land of Egypt, and the LORD” (their) “God brought” (them) “out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm.” This text from Deuteronomy marries the seventh day Sabbath to the deliverance from Egypt. Whereas, in Egypt the Israelites were forced to work everyday with no rest, each seventh day the Israelites would now be able to rest from their labors. Every Sabbath rest reminded Israel that God is an emancipator, a liberator, bringing rest to His people. It must be acknowledged that if the Sabbath was a universal and perpetual command from creation, it could not be given to remind Israel of the Exodus. The Sabbath could only be a reminder of the Exodus from slavery if it was something new and unique, originating after the children of Israel’s enslavement in Egypt. This physical rest presaged the spiritual rest of the New Covenant. Because the Israelites failed to learn this lesson, their Mosaic Covenant was abolished along with its sign.

(A word should be said here, parenthetically, concerning the seventh day Sabbath and the seventh day rest of Yahweh at the end of the creation week (Gen. 2:2-3, And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.). Some may suggest that the Creator instituted the Sabbath from the very beginning of creation and enjoined it upon all men. To take such a position is to read into the Genesis text what is simply not there. All that one is able to say for certain from Genesis 2:2-3 is that Moses is making an observation that God ceased His creative work on the seventh day. The rest ascribed to Yahweh in this text is a qualified rest. The Creator of the universe did not cease from His activity of being Father to His creation; there was no halt to His work of Sustainer of all He had made. When Jesus and His disciples broke the Jewish Sabbath by harvesting grain on this day [Mark 2:23-24], or healing and instructing a man to carry his bed on the Sabbath day, Christ pointed out that His Father never stopped working on this day, nor did He [John 6;16-18]. Moreover, Jesus pointed out that the priests worked on the Sabbath [working in and about the temple apparatus and performing circumcision], thereby, profaning the day themselves [Matthew 12:5; John 7:22-23]. Further, the context of this first biblical mention of a seventh day rest must be considered: Moses is writing this AFTER the Decalogue had been given and the seventh day Sabbath command of the 4th Commandment would have been fresh on his mind. So, for him to make a connection between the rest enjoined upon the Hebrew people and the rest of the Almighty from His creative work would have been a natural connection to make; albeit, the two rests are of a different nature and for different reasons. Yahweh’s rest on the seventh day of creation was partial [only from creative activity—Genesis 2:2]; the rest enjoined on the Hebrews was total [no work at all—Exodus 31:13-17]. Yahweh’s reason for resting was to cease from creation until the time of the New Creation; the reason for the rest enjoined on the Hebrews was as a sign of Yahweh’s special covenant with them [Exodus 31:17] and a reminder to them of their former state as slaves and of their great deliverance [Deuteronomy 5:15].

Some, desiring to be in bondage to the letter, and not the Spirit, point to the phrase of the 4th Commandment which says “Remember the Sabbath day …” and assert the existence of a Sabbath Law before the Decalogue. This, in our opinion, is an attempt to make too much of a natural idiom. The word “remember” in this sense most likely means “be mindful.” By way of example a parent may say to a child, when first giving instructions of how to safely across a street: “Remember to look both ways before starting across.” By this the parent is not assuming that the child has crossed a street before and instructing the child to remember the former event. No. The parent is simply saying, “Be mindful to look both ways.” The 4th Commandment, then, is saying, “Be mindful of the Sabbath … .” The 4th Commandment is the very first time in human history that God’s people are given instructions on what it means to keep the Sabbath. Here is given, to the people of God, something unique for a particular people and time.)

Since the sign of the Mosaic covenant (the seventh day Sabbath) was particular to that covenant, once the Mosaic Covenant was abolished the sign of the covenant was also abolished with it: “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; …” (Ephesians 2:15). The New Testament is very clear that we no longer need to keep the seventh day Sabbath, because it was only a shadow of the rest we were to receive in Christ: “So let no one judge you … regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are” (were) “a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17). To those who would suggest that the “sabbaths” of this text reference the extra sabbaths of the feast days, we would counter: Not likely, because the sabbaths of the feast days are referenced in the text by “So let no one judge you … regarding a festival or a new moon… .” So, then, the admonition of Paul that the Christian “let no one judge you (him/her)… regarding … sabbaths,” has the weekly 7th day Sabbaths in view. In very fact, the Apostle Paul teaches that the Christian who is strong in the faith will most likely not keep one day above another, but will esteem every day alike (see Romans 14:1-2, 5, 22).

On the subject to the true REST, see the letter to the Hebrews, were Christians are admonished to: “Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 … but the word which they heard did not profit them (the Hebrews), not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. 3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: “So I swore in My wrath,‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ” .… 4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and again in this place: “They shall not enter My rest.” 6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, 7 again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.” 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. 11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:1-11 NKJV, see also Romans 14:5-6; Galatians 4:10-11.)

Hello friends, I am a full time biblical researcher. I rely on freewill love offerings (from those of you who benefit from my work) and book sales for my support. Would you please consider leaving a small donation at the link provided here? Thank you for your support. -JLH
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4EXSWA2A47ARC

Apostolically Speaking,
☩☩ Jerry L Hayes
(Mar David Ignatius)

This has been Chapter One of a two chapter series on how the Christian should respond to the 7th day Sabbath. Be sure to continue on to Chapter Two at the link provided here:

Christianity's Association With The 7th Day Sabbath, Chapter Two
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/07/christianity-and-seventh-day-sabbath_1.html

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY PURCHASING MY BOOKS FOR YOUR LIBRARY. -JLH

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

The Sign of Jonah, Defending Good Friday

Christian Day of Worship: Chapter Two, "The Eighth Day"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-christian-day-of-worship-chapter.html

Christian Day of Worship:: Chapter Three, "The Lord's Day: Sunday"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-christian-day-of-worship-chapter_1.html