Check back because new questions and answers are being added regularly
Question: Does the Bible condemn capital punishment?
Answer: The command “Thou shalt not kill” in Exodus 20:13 is actually “You shall not commit murder” (NJKV). God forbade murder, not capital punishment. In fact, God specifically commanded capital punishment for certain crimes under the Law of Moses. Crimes under the Law of Moses that required the death penalty included premeditated murder (Exodus 21:12-14; Numbers 35:16-21, 30-33; Deuteronomy 17:6); striking or cursing father or mother (Exodus 21:15, 17; Leviticus 20:9); disobedient to parents (Deuteronomy 21:18-21); kidnapping (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7); beating a servant to death (Exodus 21:20); hurting a woman with child so that either the mother or child dies (Exodus 21:22-25); adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:24); fornication (Leviticus 21:9; Deuteronomy 22:13-21); rape of a betrothed virgin (Deuteronomy 22:25); incest with father’s wife (Leviticus 20:11); incest with daughter-in-law (Leviticus 20:12); homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13); marrying both mother and daughter (Leviticus 20:14); bestiality (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 20:15-16); incest with sister, step-sister or half-sister (Leviticus 20:17); sexual relations with a woman during menstruation (Leviticus 20:18); incest with aunt (Leviticus 20:19-20); incest with sister-in-law (Leviticus 20:21); perjury (Zechariah 5:4); theft (Zechariah 5:3-4); blasphemy (Leviticus 24:11-14, 16, 23); refusing to abide by the decision of the court (Deuteronomy 17:12); treason (1 Kings 2:25; Esther 2:23); for breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36); prophesying falsely or teaching false doctrine (Deuteronomy 13:1-10); sacrificing to false gods (Exodus 22:20); anyone who is a medium (Leviticus 20:27); witchcraft (Exodus 22:18); and offering human sacrifices (Leviticus 20:2-5).
As early as the murder of Abel by his brother Cain, God specified punishment for murderers. Although Cain was not executed for his crime, he was marked and banished for life, and anyone who would take Cain’s life would have “vengeance... taken on him sevenfold” (Genesis 4:11-15). Following the flood in which God wiped wickedness from the earth, the Lord specified capital punishment in cases of murder. He said, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). This verse says the reason why God would not tolerate the indiscriminate taking of another’s life is because man was created in the image of God. Murdering one who was created in the image of God is not just a sin against the one killed, but against the God who created him in His image.
Furthermore, no one could be executed under the Law of Moses without the corroborating testimony of two or three witnesses, and those witnesses had to be the first to carry out the punishment as executioners (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 13:9; 17:6-7; 19:15). Tradition says these executioners also had to contemplate the seriousness of their actions. They would not simply be putting the guilty to death, but would also be condemning all future descendants of the guilty who would never be born.
As far as New Testament references to capital punishment, the apostle Paul states that civil rulers are “God’s ministers to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Romans 13:4). Some argue that this passage does not specifically mention capital punishment as an accepted means of civil leaders executing “wrath on him who practices evil.” However, it would certainly seem to imply any and all means of exercising judgment against evildoers would be accepted, especially since capital punishment was commanded by God under the Old Law. Since God’s laws concerning murder and the punishment of murderers predate the Law of Moses, and can be traced back to the days immediately following the flood, it could be argued that these laws were part of God’s laws from the very beginning of time -- as far back as Cain’s murder of Abel.
Question: Why did God command the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of Canaan?
Answer: When the children of Israel entered the land of Canaan, the inhabitants of the land (especially the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizites, Hivites, and the Jebusites) were among the most cruel and wickedly sinful people known. They were worshippers of the pagan gods Molech and Baal which, among other things, required human sacrifices. It was customary for these parents to regularly offer their children in sacrifice to Molech, and even the worship of Baal occasionally included human sacrifice (Jeremiah 19:5). Archeological discoveries in Israel have confirmed numerous graveyards in which the bodies of infants were found placed head-down in ceramic jars -- all victims of human sacrifice to pagan gods.
Human sacrifice is one of several sins God has said is worthy of death. In Leviticus chapter 20, God sternly warned against this practice by saying, “you shall say to the children of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel, who gives any of his descendants to Molech, he shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from his people, because he has given some of his descendants to Molech, to defile My sanctuary and profane My holy name. And if the people of the land should in any way hide their eyes from the man, when he gives some of his descendants to Molech, and they do not kill him, then I will set My face against that man and against his family, and I will cut him off from the people, and all who prostitute themselves with him to commit harlotry with Molech” (Leviticus 20:2-5).
God made it clear that He would not tolerate human sacrifice among the people of Israel, or from those who sojourn in the land. Neither would he allow anyone to simply look the other way (“hide their eyes”) from those who practice such sins. There was one, and only one, punishment for them -- death! Because of the sins of the people living in the land of Canaan, God had already pronounced the death sentence on many of these idolatrous peoples, and would simply use the children of Israel to carry out the execution. The reason for God ordering the execution of these pagan nations is because He wanted to make certain the children of Israel would not “make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst” (Exodus 34:11-16).
However, not all inhabitants of the land would be slain. For those cities that made peace with the children of Israel, they would become servants of the Israelites (Deuteronomy 20:10-11). On the other hand, if the city will not make peace, the Lord commanded that only the men should be slain, but the women, the children, the livestock, and all that is in the city would become the property of the Israelites (Deuteronomy 20:12-15). But those cities belonging to the wicked and grossly immoral Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizites, Hivites, and the Jebusites, God said, “you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them... lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done from their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). They had committed sins worthy of death, and now they were to be punished according to their deeds.
Sadly, neither all these nations nor their religious practices were completely eradicated from the land. The result was that the children of Israel eventually fell under the influence of these people to the extent that the Jews even participated in their idolatry and immoral lifestyles -- including human sacrifice of small children.
Question: What was the purpose of animal sacrifices?
Answer: Not all sacrifices under the Law of Moses required the shedding of blood. For example, there were sacrifices of wine, oil, and corn, either the whole ear or in the form of meal, dough, cakes, etc. These were the items used in vegetable or bloodless sacrifices that formed two distinct sacrifices. The first was the Grain Offering, which was also called the Meal Offering, (Leviticus 2:1-16; 6:14-18). This was the offering of fine flour, unleavened bread, cakes, wafers, ears of roasted corn, always with salt, and, except in the sin-offering, with olive oil (Leviticus 2:1, 4, 13-14; 5:11). The second was the Drink Offering which consisted of wine, that was poured out upon the alter, and probably upon the flesh of the sacrifice (Numbers 6:17; 15:1-12). However, there were offerings or sacrifices that did require the shedding of blood. These comprised the Sin Offering (Leviticus 4:1-35; 6:24-30), the Guilt (Trespass) Offering (Leviticus 5:14-6:7), the Burnt Offering (Leviticus 1), and the Peace Offering (Leviticus 3).
Why was the shedding of blood required in certain sacrifices? The covenant or agreement God made between Himself and mankind was repeatedly broken by man’s sins against God, thus violating the terms of the covenant or agreement. The punishment justly deserved for anyone who violated the commandments of God was death -- both physical death, as well as spiritual separation from God, or loss of fellowship with God. However, God provided a means by which man’s life would be spared, and for the breech of fellowship to be healed, and for man’s rights under God’s covenant to be restored. The means of restitution and restoration would require the shedding of blood -- not the blood of guilty man, but the blood of an animal that would symbolically represent and stand in the place of sinful man.
The shedding of blood and the subsequent sacrifices of those animals served another purpose. It served as a constant reminder to sinful man that he was the one who was really worthy of death (Hebrews 10:3). But God in His mercy would accept the sacrificial blood of an animal in place of, and as a substitute for, the life of guilty man. All of this looked forward to the time when Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God (Isaiah 53:4-6, 10-11), would make the ultimate sacrifice, offering His own blood once and for all for the sins of all mankind (Hebrews 9:12-14).
Question: Didn’t the commandment to keep the Sabbath originate during the creation?
Answer: Moses wrote “And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made” (Genesis 2:2-3). To Isaac, the Lord said, “And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Genesis 26:4-5). The account in Exodus 20:8-11 is the Sabbath law as it appears in the Ten Commandments. God then said why He wanted the seventh day to be kept holy as a Sabbath (rest) by alluding to Genesis 2:2-3: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:11).
The argument is made by Sabbatarians that God established the Sabbath day as a day of rest from creation (the days of Adam and Eve), and that even Abraham observed the Sabbath and kept other “commandments” of the Lord, which the Sabbatarians say were given before Moses received the Law on Mount Sinai. While it is true that God rested on the seventh day of creation, Genesis 2:2-3 does not say He blessed the seventh day at that time, nor does it say He commanded anyone to observe it as a holy day at that time. Genesis 2:2-3 not say, or even imply, that Adam and Eve were commanded to keep the Sabbath, or that they observed the Sabbath as a holy day unto the Lord. Keep in mind that Moses wrote Genesis 2:2-3 in retrospect (looking back to the events of creation some 2,500 years earlier), and explained why God rested on the seventh day, and why He later blessed the day as a holy day. In fact, the King James Version of Genesis 2: 3 is even more emphatic -- “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.” The words “had rested” are in the past perfect tense, and show action completed in the past.
The first time the Sabbath is ever mentioned in the Scriptures is in Exodus 16:23f. And the first time the Sabbath is formally and officially set apart as a day unto the Lord is in Exodus 20:8-11. God blessed the seventh day in Exodus 20:8-11 at Mount Sinai, because He once “had rested” on the seventh day in Genesis 2:2-3 during the days of creation. Neither the Sabbath commandment nor the Ten Commandments were given to Adam and Eve, nor were they kept by Abraham. Genesis 26:4-5 is not proof that Abraham kept the Sabbath or the Ten Commandments. God said He was willing to convey the blessings of Abraham on Isaac because “Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.” Genesis 26:4-5). There is no basis whatsoever for concluding that the “commandments,” “statutes,” and “laws” which Abraham kept included all of those contained in the Ten Commandments -- that is pure supposition.
There is not one passage that says Abraham, or any of those who proceeded him, kept the Sabbath as a holy day unto the Lord. The “commandments,” “statutes,” and “laws” which Adam and Eve kept, and which Abraham kept. were the “commandments,” “statutes,” and “laws” that God gave to them. No doubt, these “commandments,” “statutes,” and “laws” included some of the same regulations later found in the Ten Commandments (such as commandments against murder), but there is no indication whatsoever that the “commandments,” “statutes,” and “laws” given to Abraham and others before him included keeping the Sabbath. Moses makes it clear that the Ten Commandments and its Sabbath observance, was not given to anyone prior to Mount Sinai. He said, “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb (Sinai). The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive” (Deuteronomy 5:2-3).
The covenant which included the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath was not made with Adam or Abraham or any of the other Patriarchs or “fathers” of Israel. That covenant was made exclusively with the children of Israel: “those who are here today, all of us who are alive.”
Question: What did Jesus mean when he said the Sabbath was for man?
Answer: Jesus is not saying the Sabbath should be kept by everyone because “the Sabbath was made for man.” In the context of Mark 2:27-28, Jesus and His disciples had been accused of breaking the Sabbath by passing through a grain field, plucking the grain and eating it. Matthew’s account says they were hungry (Matthew 12:1). To answer His critics, Jesus gave an example of David entering the house of God and eating the showbread “which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him” (Mark 2:26). Jesus says the reason David did this was because “he was in need and hungry, he and those with him” (v. 25). Jesus then concluded by saying “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (v. 27). By this, Jesus was saying God did not make man for the purpose of keeping the Sabbath, but made the Sabbath for the benefit of man. According to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Thayer, p. 134), the word “for” means “for the benefit of.” God did not make man “for the benefit of” the Sabbath, but rather made the Sabbath “for the benefit of” man.
God never intended for the keeping of this or any other commandment to take precedence over caring for the immediate and genuine needs of others, or even the needs of animals (Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6). Therefore, neither David nor Jesus and His disciples violated the Law of God, because “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” God would much rather have “mercy” than “sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6; Matthew 9:13). However, the Sabbath was clearly made for man. But which men? It was made for those who were supposed to keep it as a holy day unto the Lord. Which men were supposed to keep the Sabbath -- Jew or Gentile, or both? Since the Sabbath was not given to anyone before the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai, it couldn’t have been made for the “fathers” of Israel (cf. Deuteronomy 5:2-3). And since the Sabbath was not given to anyone in the New Testament church to observe, it couldn’t have been made for them either. In fact, the apostle Paul made it clear that New Testament Christians are not to be judged regarding “Sabbaths” or any of the other provisions of the Law of Moses (Colossians 2:13-17).
Answer: In Colossians 2:13-17 we have a passage that specifically shows that the Sabbaths along with other holy days and feasts were not to be observed in the New Testament church. These holy days and feasts were “wiped out” (“blotted out”) and were nailed to the cross. While it is perfectly clear that being judged in regard to “food or in drink, or regarding a festival (feast day) or a new moon” was no longer allowed under New Testament law, neither was being judged with regard to the keeping of “Sabbaths.”
Sabbatarians say Colossians 2:16 cannot be referring to the weekly Sabbath but rather to other annual feast days celebrated under the Law of Moses. This, they say, is because the word for Sabbath in verse 16 is in the genitive plural form “ton sabbaton” (literally “Sabbaths”). However, there are other passages where “ton sabbaton” is used, and in every case it is used in reference to the weekly Sabbath (Matthew 28:1; Luke 4:16; Acts 13:14; and Acts 16:13).
In 1 Chronicles 23:30-31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 18:13; 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33 we find several feasts set forth which the Jews were commanded to observe. These are references to services that are specified as either morning and/or evening services (daily services), services pertaining to the Sabbath (weekly services), services pertaining to the new moon (monthly services), and the solemn feasts outlined in Leviticus 23 (annual services).
The Jews observed daily, weekly, monthly and annual feasts. But Colossians 2:16 says, “let no one judge you in food or drink (daily services), or regarding a festival [or “feast day”] (annual services), or a new moon (monthly service) or Sabbaths (weekly service).” The daily, weekly, monthly and annual services of the Jews were “wiped out” and nailed to the cross. These include laws and regulations contained in both the so-called “ceremonial laws” as well as the Ten Commandments (since keeping the Sabbath was a Ten Commandment law). In other words, the Law that was “wiped out” and nailed to the cross, was the Law of God given to Moses and the people of Israel, and which contained laws and regulations concerning “food or drink,” “feast days,” “new moons,” and “Sabbaths.”
Furthermore, there was only one covenant made with Israel at Sinai. Sabbatarians attempt to make a distinction between the moral law and the ceremonial law, even though the Bible makes no such distinction. The words “moral” and “ceremonial” are not even in the Bible. No matter how many ways one wishes to divide and subdivide the covenant, there is still only one covenant. That one covenant and its corresponding laws “He has taken [it] out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14). Solomon understood that the Ten Commandments were part of the one covenant God made with the children of Israel at Mount Sinai.
At the dedication of the Temple Solomon said, “And there I have put the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord which He made with the children of Israel” (2 Chronicles 6:11). Various Old Testament passages speak of only one covenant (the covenant given at Mount Sinai), and mention the elements of that covenant: (1) “the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant” (Deuteronomy 9:9); (2) “the Book of the Covenant” (Exodus 24:7); (3) “the blood of the covenant” (Exodus 24:8); and (4) “the ark of the covenant” (Deuteronomy 31:26). Therefore, when Solomon dedicated the Temple and put the “ark” in the Temple which contained “the covenant,” which were also called the “tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.” It should be remembered that the ark of the covenant contained only three items: the tablets of stone (the Ten Commandments), Aaron’s rod, and a pot of manna. Therefore, when Solomon place the ark in the Temple, the ark contained “the covenant of the Lord” which was the “tablets of stone.”
The apostle Paul in Galatians chapter four speaks of there being only one covenant which was given “from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar...and corresponds to the Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children” (Galatians 4:24). The other covenant is according to the “freewoman,” and which speaks of “the Jerusalem above” (v. 26), which is a reference to the new covenant mediated through Jesus Christ. Paul makes it clear that we are to “cast out the bondwoman and her son” -- that is, the covenant that God made at Sinai -- because “the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman” (v. 30).
The Hebrew writer repeatedly speaks of only one covenant when speaking of the covenant God made with the children of Israel (Hebrews 8:7, 9, 13; 9:1, 4, 15, 18-20). In the seventh chapter of Romans, the apostle Paul also helps us understand that the Law of Moses contained in the Ten Commandments is no longer binding. To do this, Paul uses a familiar illustration. Everyone understood that a woman cannot be married to two men at the same time without being guilty of adultery (Romans 7:1-3). The only way she can marry another (in the context of Paul’s illustration) is if her first husband is dead. (Of course, she could also be married to another if she put her first husband away for the cause of fornication, but Paul is not arguing marriage, divorce and remarriage here. Therefore, Paul concludes “you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another, even to Him who was raised from the dead” (v. 4). The word “dead” in Romans 7:4 is defined as “...by death, to be liberated from the bond of anything (literally, to be dead in relation to)” -- Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament. This is the same word used in Romans 8:13, where Paul says “put to death the deeds of the body.” In other words, Christians are to be separated from the law to the same extent as we are to be separated from sin (“the deeds of the body”). Furthermore, in Romans 7:6, Paul says, “But now we have been delivered from the law...” The word “delivered” means “...to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from, anyone; to terminate all intercourse with one...Galatians 5:4, ... Romans 7:6”) -- Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament. So that there would be no misunderstanding about which “law” Paul said we have become dead to, he adds “I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said ‘You shall not covet.’” Which law said “You shall not covet?” The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21).
Sabbatarians answer this argument by asking, “if the Ten Commandments are not in force today, they we can steal, kill, commit adultery, or take the Lord’s name in vain, etc.” This is simply not so. Under the New Covenant, God has commanded us not to do those things. We find the teaching of nine of the Ten Commandments in the pages of the New Testament. (1) Idolatry is forbidden: Acts 14:11-15; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; (2) Graven images are forbidden: Acts 17 and 19; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 John 5:21; (3) The use of God’s name in vain is forbidden: 1 Timothy 1:19-20; 2 Timothy 2:16; (4) Sabbath-keeping is nowhere commanded of Christians; (5) Honoring father and mother is commanded: Ephesians 6:1-2; (6) Killing is forbidden: 1 Peter 4:15; (7) Committing adultery is forbidden: 1 Corinthians 6:8-9; Galatians 5:19; (8) Stealing is forbidden: Ephesians 4:28; (9) Bearing false witness is forbidden: Colossians 3:9; (10) Coveting is forbidden: Ephesians 5:3. Therefore, when the Christian steals, kills, commits adultery, or takes the Lord’s name in vain, he does not break the Ten Commandments, which was never given to him, he breaks the law of Christ -- the New Covenant.
Answer: There are several passages that clearly show the phrases “law of God” or the “law of the Lord” are used interchangeably with the “law” or the “law of Moses.” In other words, these phrases are all describing the same law. For example, in Nehemiah chapter 8, the phrases “law of Moses” (Nehemiah 8:1); “the law” (Nehemiah 8:2, 7, 9, 13-14); and “law of God” (Nehemiah 8:8, 18) are all used interchangeably. In Ezra chapter 7, we read that Ezra was “a skilled scribe in the Law of Moses” (Ezra 7:6). But later in the same chapter, Ezra is called “a scribe of the Law of the God of heaven” (Ezra 7:12). It’s clear that both terms, “law of Moses” and “law of the God of heaven” (or “law of God”), are being used interchangeably.
According to arguments made by Sabbatarians, the laws concerning murder are in the “law of God” or the “law of the Lord” (meaning the Ten Commandments), and not the “law” or the “law of Moses” (which they say refer to the so-called ceremonial laws). However, Jesus said just the opposite. In John chapter 7 Jesus asked, “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keeps the law? Who do you seek to kill Me?” (John 7:19). Sabbatarians also say regulations concerning sacrifices, such as burnt offerings, are part of the “law” or the “law of Moses” (the so-called ceremonial laws), and not part of the “law of the Lord,” which is supposed to be just the Ten Commandments. But, according to 2nd Chronicles chapter 31, “burnt offerings: for the morning and evening burnt offerings, the burnt offerings for the Sabbaths and the New Moons and the set feasts” are written in the “law of the Lord.” Luke also speaks of the sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” as being an offering “according to what is said in the law of the Lord” (Luke 2:23-24).
According to Sabbatarians, regulations concerning sacrifices should be found in the so-called ceremonial laws recorded in the “law” or the “law of Moses.” And yet, Luke says these laws are “in the law of the Lord,” which according to Sabbatarians, is the Ten Commandment Law. Obviously, the terms “law,” “law of Moses,” “law of God,” and “law of the Lord” are all referring to the same thing.
Question: Why did Jesus and the apostle Paul keep the Sabbath?
Answer: First, Jesus kept the Sabbath because He was born, lived and died as a Jew under the Law of Moses. If we are to follow this example of Jesus and keep the Sabbath ourselves, then we are also obligated to follow all the other examples of Jesus, including the practice of circumcision (Luke 2:21), and the observance of the Passover (Matthew 26:17-25). Even Sabbatarians don’t keep these.
As for Paul, there is no passage anywhere in the New Testament where Paul or any other Christian kept the Sabbath or observed the Sabbath. What does the Bible say about Paul and the Sabbath? On one particular occasion Paul and his party “went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down,” and when given an opportunity to speak, Paul “stood up” and spoke to them about Jesus (Acts 13:13-41). On another occasion the Bible says, “on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made: and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there” (Acts 16:13). On still another occasion it says, “they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures” (Acts 17:1-2). And finally, “he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 18:4).
There is not a single time in any of these passages where Paul is said to have “kept” or “observed” the Sabbath. What Paul did, was to do what any of us would do under similar circumstances -- go to the people we want to teach, meet with them in their place of worship, if we’re permitted to do so (even on the Sabbath), and attempt to reason with them regarding the truth. This is not implying that we would be having fellowship with them in their worship, but simply using that opportunity as an expedient time, and perhaps an expedient place, to appeal to them from the Scriptures.
Even if it could be argued that Paul kept the Sabbath (which it can’t), he would not have been doing so because God commanded it. Rather, he would have simply been doing what he explained in 1st Corinthians chapter 9 -- “to the Jews I became as a Jew” (1 Corinthians 9:20-23). For example, he had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3), and took note of Pentecost (Acts 20:16), shaved his head according to an Old Covenant vow (Acts 18:18), and finally made offerings according to the Law (Acts 21:20-26). If we are to keep the Sabbath because some believe Paul kept the Sabbath, then we need to keep all the other things Paul “kept” including, circumcision, Pentecost, the Nazarite vow, and offerings according to the Law. And yet, Sabbatarians do not keep or bind any of these things -- just the Sabbath. If Paul’s alleged keeping or observing the Sabbath is authority for us to do the same, then why isn’t Paul’s keeping of these other things authority for us to do the same as well?
Question: What did Jesus mean when he said he did not come to “destroy” the law?
Answer: What Jesus actually said was that He didn’t come to destroy “the Law or the Prophets.” That statement was not simply referring to just the Ten Commandments, but to the entire Old Covenant -- both the Law and the Prophets. If this passage somehow binds Sabbath-keeping for Christians, then it also binds keeping the rest of the Old Covenant -- including the Prophets. One of those prophets was Malachi, and he commanded the Israelites to keep the entire Mosaic law -- not just the Ten Commandments (Malachi 4:4). Therefore, if Matthew 5:17-19 means Christians are to keep the Ten Commandments, it also means Christians are to keep the entire Mosaic law -- including sacrifices. Even Sabbatarians don’t believe that.
Furthermore, the word “destroy” in Matthew 5:17 means, “to dissolve, disunite, destroy, demolish, overthrow, render vain, deprive of success, bring to naught, overthrow, deprive of force, annul, abrogate, discard” (Thayer). Jesus used this same word in Matthew 24:2 when speaking of the destruction of the temple: “not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” This is what many of the Jews thought Jesus would do to the Law -- completely destroy it, cast it down, overthrow it, and start an entirely new religion independent of the Old Covenant. That was never His intention. If Jesus had done to the Old Covenant what He later did to the Temple, the Old Covenant would have been completely annihilated and wiped off the face of the earth. Jesus had no intention of destroying the Law or the Prophets. Rather, He came to fulfill them. Jesus said, “till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (v. 18). After His death, Jesus reminded the apostles, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me” (Luke 24:44). Notice that the Lord said not “one jot or tittle will... pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
When Jesus fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, the law (the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms) would have served its purpose, and would no longer be needed. If Jesus didn’t fulfill all that was written of Him, then both the Law and the Prophets are still in force today. Even the Sabbatarians don’t argue both are in force -- the Law, yes, but not the Prophets. But either all that was written of Jesus in the Law and the Prophets was fulfilled, or it wasn’t. If it wasn’t, then not “one jot or tittle will... pass from the law (the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms) till all is fulfilled.” The apostle Paul wrote regarding the role the Law played in bringing us to Christ. He said, “but before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Galatians 3:23-25). The word “tutor” (“schoolmaster” KJV) in Galatians 3:23 and 25 is a reference to a household servant or guardian who had the responsibility for the care and discipline of the children. This guardian did not teach, but had the responsibility of safeguarding the children while they were being taken to the teacher to be taught.
The purpose of the Law was to safeguard the Jews as children until they could be brought to the teacher, Christ. If Jesus had come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, He would have been destroying the tutor that was to bring the Jews to Him. He didn’t come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, He came to fulfill them. And since He has fulfilled all that was written of Him in the Law and the Prophets, the Law has served its purpose in bringing us to Christ.
Answer: The statement of Jesus in Matthew 24:20 was spoken in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem, where Jesus was warning about the various obstacles that might arise making the flight of His disciples from the city difficult. He told them, “woe to those who are pregnant and to those with nursing babies in those days” (v. 19). Why? “Let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes” (vs. 16-18). When the hour came to flee the city for the mountains, there would be no time for anyone to pack up and take their belongings with them. They would need to escape immediately, literally with the clothes on their backs.
This would be especially difficult for pregnant women, or those with small, nursing babies. It is certainly easy to understand why Jesus would tell His disciples in verse 20 to pray “that your flight may not be in the winter.” Winter would be the worst possible time for people to flee to the mountains with only the clothes on their backs -- especially those who were pregnant or caring for nursing babies.
But what significance is there in praying that the flight not be on the Sabbath? Again, Jesus is speaking of obstacles that would make the flight of His disciples from the city of Jerusalem difficult. Jesus’ statement shows that in 70 A.D., when the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed, the Jews who lived there would still be observing the Sabbath laws. One of those Sabbath laws concerned the gates that would permit the easiest escape from the walled city of Jerusalem. In Nehemiah chapter 13, Nehemiah was contending with the “nobles of Judah” about profaning the Sabbath day, to keep Jehovah from bringing added wrath upon Israel. Therefore, he said, “so it was, at the gates of Jerusalem, as it began to be dark before the Sabbath, that I commanded the gates to be shut, and charged that they must not be opened till after the Sabbath. Then I posted some of my servants at the gates, so that no burden would be brought in on the Sabbath day” (Nehemiah 13:17-19).
Jesus told His disciples to pray that their flight from the city would not be on the Sabbath because the gates that would permit the easiest escape would be shut until the Sabbath was over. Attempting to escape the walled city of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day would be just as much of a hindrance as attempting to flee to the mountains in the winter time. Jesus told His disciples to pray that neither happens.
There is absolutely nothing in this statement that could in any way be interpreted as a command for the disciples of Jesus to keep the Sabbath, nor is He saying they couldn’t flee Jerusalem on the Sabbath without breaking the Sabbath command. He’s saying since the gates of the city that provide the easiest passage would be shut on the Sabbath, they might not be able to flee Jerusalem on the Sabbath at all.
Question: What does it mean that God found fault with the first covenant (Hebrews 8:7-8)?
Answer: In Psalm 19, David wrote, “the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes” (Psalm 19:7-8).
God obviously didn’t make a “faulty” covenant, nor did He give the people of Israel a defective Law. There was nothing wrong with the Law as it was given, nor did it fail to serve the purpose for which it was intended. The Law of the Lord was “perfect” (completely able to do what it was designed to do), it was “sure” (dependable), “right” (correct), and it was “pure” (free from contamination).
However, there was something the Law couldn’t do. It couldn’t give life, because it wasn’t designed for that purpose. Paul wrote, “if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law” (Galatians 3:21). The purpose of the Law was to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24). It was never intended to justify man, but was transitory in nature.
The real purpose of the Law was to bring us to Christ and the gospel, by which man is justified. The Law was “perfect” in that regard -- it was completely able to do what it was designed to do; namely, bring us to Christ. However, the Hebrew writer (Hebrews 8:7-12) said, if the first covenant (the Old Testament Law of Moses) had been sufficient to accomplish God’s purpose to provide salvation for all mankind, then there would have never been a place sought for another covenant. However, the law was “weak and unprofitable, for the law made nothing perfect” (Hebrews 7:18-19; also see Hebrews 10:1-10). This same idea is expressed by the apostle Paul in Romans chapter 3 where he says, “therefore by the deeds of [the] law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by [the] law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20)
Law simply cannot bring justification in and of itself -- it is not designed for that purpose. Law simply makes us aware of sin (transgressions of law) Nor can law-keeping bring justification in and of itself -- no one is justified simply on the basis of law-keeping. Therefore, the Law of Moses could not bring justification in and of itself, because it was never designed for that purpose. Neither could keeping the Law of Moses bring justification in and of itself. Rather, justification comes through a living, vibrant and working faith that motivates us to be obedient to God’s commands (See: Romans 3:28; 4:1-9).
Since the first covenant was not designed to offer complete and permanent justification from sin on the basis of faith, it was necessary to bring in another that could. It is “by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10).
Question: What is meant by the first covenant being ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13)?
Answer: When the Hebrew writer penned these words, the Temple still stood in the city of Jerusalem, and the Jews still observed the Law of Moses. However, when Jerusalem fell in 70 A.D., Judaism collapsed, and so did the observance of much of the Law of Moses. The destruction of the city of Jerusalem brought about the destruction of the Temple. And without the Temple, no sacrifices could be made in accordance with the Law. There was no alter of burnt offering, no holy place, no holy of holies, and no ark of the covenant.
Although Christ abolished the first covenant as a religious institution and “nailed it to His cross” (Colossians 2:14), the first covenant was still being practiced by those Jews who refused to follow Christ under the new and better covenant. But the time was coming with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, when the first covenant would completely “vanish away,” and not even those Jews who rejected Christ could continue to observe it completely.