“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, and the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar [Hagar].…But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.…Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born of the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free” (Gal. 4:21-31).
Some of the Galatian brethren had become “bewitched” (3:1) through false teaching, and believed it necessary to be circumcised and to “keep the law of Moses.” They, like their modern brethren, “observed days” (4:10), and became “entangled with the yoke of bondage.” To them is directed this entire Epistle of solemn warnings and powerful arguments against the doctrine that the law system is in force in this dispensation. Because they gave heed to some law-teachers, who “perverted the gospel of Christ” (1:7), and in obedience to their teaching observed law “days,” etc., the apostle addressed them, “O foolish Galatians, …are ye so foolish?”
In the foregoing scripture the apostle uses a powerful argument to show the abrogation of the law system. This he does by an allegory. The four principal characters in this allegory are Hagar, Ishmael, Sarah, and Isaac. These two women, Hagar and Sarah, represent “two covenants.” Hagar represents the covenant made or given on “Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage.” Sarah represents the covenant from Jerusalem—”the truth which came by Jesus Christ,” which makes men free. The two Sons of one father (Abraham) represent the children of the two covenants: Ishmael, the Jews; and Isaac, the Christians—both Jews and Gentiles.
Mark this fact, that the covenant from Sinai is denominated a “bondwoman,” and all who cling to that covenant are her “children.” “Ye that desire to be under the law.” This applies to all Saturday-keepers. “Do ye not hear the law?” What law? Answer: The “covenant, the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Hagar.” The Sinaitic covenant was “bondage,” and the apostle warned them to “be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (chap. 5:1). “What saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son.” Language could not be framed to teach more clearly the abrogation of the old covenant. “So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” Not under the Sinaitic covenant, but under the new covenant of grace in Christ Jesus. “These two covenants do not mix or blend together in the same heart, nor in the same dispensation.” To accept Christ in his fullness is to cast out Hagar and her Sabbath.
“But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 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” (Heb. 8:6-13).
Here the two covenants are clearly contrasted. The one from Sinai is termed “the first covenant,” “old covenant,” “faulty” covenant, which “decayeth,” “waxeth old,” and “is ready to vanish away.” That ends the old covenant, the one from Sinai, the ten commandments, as we have proved. But the new testament is termed the “second covenant,” “new covenant,” “better covenant,” “not according to” the first, “written in our minds and hearts.” There is no way to evade this plain testimony.
Paul says that God made the first with Israel—“in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.” “Now, what covenant did God make with Israel after their exodus? Here is a perfect answer: ‘And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt’ (1 Kings 8:21). It was that which Moses deposited in the ark; i. e., ‘the tables of the covenant’ (Heb. 9:4). And turning back to 1 Kings 8, we read in verse 9, ‘There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.’
“So, then, Jeremiah tells us that the former covenant was that which God made with Israel when he took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, and that was the covenant which he wrote on tables of stone and put in the ark. There is no possible evading the truth here.
“After quoting the very scriptures above cited, U. Smith, in his tract on The Two Covenants says, ‘They ask us, “What can be plainer? There was nothing in the ark but the two tables of stone, containing the Ten Commandments: yet Solomon says that in the ark was the covenant which the Lord made with the fathers of his people, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt. Therefore those commandments were the covenant.” And having established this point, they have but to quote Paul’s testimony, that the old covenant has waxed old, and vanished away, to reach the conclusion so long and anxiously sought, that the Ten Commandments have been abolished, carrying with them the obnoxious seventh-day Sabbath into their eternal tomb.
“Yes, we do humbly ask in the name of all reason, What can be plainer than the positive, unequivocal statements of the Bible, especially where it is emphatically and repeatedly declared that the tables of stone were included in the covenant made with the Israelites at Sinai when they came out of Egypt? Indeed, were we to disbelieve all these scriptures, how could we credit the Bible at all? Accepting the inspired record, it is settled forever that the first covenant included the Deca1og, which ‘is ready to vanish away.’ ‘Is nigh disappearing.’—Young’s Translatton. ‘Abolished.’—Thomson.
“Therefore all the disputers of the gospel of Christ, and vain janglers for the law of Moses, are clinging to an old decayed system that in God’s order vanished away [over] nineteen hundred years ago. And all these modern folks are as zealous as their ancient brethren—compassing land and sea, not to convert men to Christ, but to put upon them the yoke of the law, which they themselves cannot bear. Surely this is Nehushtan—a piece of brass.
“God directed Moses to make a brazen serpent in the wilderness. It was all right for its object. But 765 years after that we find idolatrous Israel worshiping that serpent. But King Hezekiah, we are told, ‘removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan’ (2 Kings 18:4).
“What is the difference between the worship of that serpent, and the worship of those who in many cases actually make a god out of that Sabbath, which, though it was appointed of God for a certain purpose and time, as the brazen serpent also had its use, has passed away, in the order of his will?
“Doubtless, those ancient worshipers reasoned just as the modern ones do: ‘God is immutable, unchangeable, therefore his laws are unchangeable. But “we know that God spake to Moses,” commanding the children of Israel to look up to this serpent; therefore we will continue to look to it forever.’
‘Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will Testament we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (Heb. 10:9, 10). Praise God! The Spirit gives us these words as a present testimony. We are sanctified.
“Two covenants are set in comparison all the way through this Epistle, called the ‘first covenant,’ and the ‘second.’ The former is very commonly called ‘the law.’ And here we reach the same end of the first covenant to which we have been brought time and again in the inspired Epistles. Christ himself, and not Constantine, nor the Pope of Rome, ‘took away the first’ covenant, and established the second, his own perfect law. And with this change ends the Mosaic Sabbath.
“There are two positions upon which the ‘teachers of the law’ usually shift, in order to dodge the Word of God; namely, one time they admit that the law, the old covenant, is abolished, but it means only the ceremonial part; and when driven from that, they change their position, and say, ‘We are only delivered from the law by obeying it through grace; that is, “from the curse of the law.”’ But the Word of God emphatically declares the passing away of the whole legal economy. The word ‘testament’ is defined as a ‘complete arrangement, or dispensation.’ So when Christ ‘took away the first, that he might establish the second,’ there was a complete dispensational change of the law, the setting up of an entirely new divine order and government. Christ is the ‘Mediator of the new testament,’ which has superseded the entire old economy, which was given to the Israelites on Mount Sinai.
“And one small phrase, in the midst of this inspired treatise on the abrogation of the old covenant, and the establishing of the new by Christ, is sufficient to prove that the apostle meant by the first covenant, of which he so frequently speaks, just what it was called when first given; namely, these words: ‘and the tables of the covenant’ (Heb. 9:4). Here the Sabbath of the Jews, and the heresy of the Ebionites must die, being thrust through with the ‘Sword of the Spirit.’ The old covenant, which was ‘ready to vanish away’ (8:13), is familiarly spoken of in connection with the tables of the covenant. Paul was well posted in the Old Testament, and knew very well that God ‘wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments’ (Exod. 34:28), and had given to Moses ‘the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant’ (Deut. 9:11). And he surely must have known that after speaking of the old covenant vanishing away, and then of ‘the tables of the covenant,’ in the same connection, all would naturally understand him as teaching that the covenant written on stones was abolished.”—The Sabbath.
Again, the two covenants are contrasted in Heb. 12:18-29,as follows:
- “Ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words,” etc.; namely, when God came down on Mount Sinai and delivered the law. “That which was commanded,” “that which was spoken on earth,” that which is “shaken” and “removed.”
- “Ye are come unto Mount Zion.…The heavenly Jerusalem…to the general assembly and church of the first-born” (the law which came out of Zion, the New Testament), “new covenant,” “which speaketh better things,” which was spoken “from heaven” (see Heb. 1:1, 2), which “cannot be shaken” and “remains.”
I quote from Canright:
“Adventists are always dwelling upon the terrible scenes at Sinai at the giving of the law, and pointing others there; but Paul says, No, do not go there; but to Mount Zion, to Jesus and the new covenant.
“So Jeremiah predicted the rejection of the covenant in the ark, and that instead of it, men would seek to the name of the Lord at Jerusalem where the gospel went forth. ‘In those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more. At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord’ (Jer. 3:16, 17).”
‘Adventists are trying to revive the very thing the Lord said should be forgotten, “the ark of the covenant.” Their study and worship is centered around that just as of old with the Jews. But their effort is vain. God has said it. Since the cross, Jesus, and Jerusalem (the church) are where all eyes are turned, while the ark and old covenant are forgotten.’
“Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to Godward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 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 steadfastly 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 made 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.
“Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: and not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: but their minds were blinded: for unto this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ” (2 Cor. 3:3-14). Here we have the two covenants contrasted in unmistakable language. The first is defined as “the old testament”; “the ministration of death,” which “was glorious”; the letter,” which “killeth”; “the ministration of condemnation”; that which “was written and engraven in stones,” which is “done away” and “abolished.” The second he terms “the new testament”; “the spirit,” which “giveth life” (for comments, see Rom. 8:2; John 6:63); the “ministration of the Spirit”; the “ministration of righteousness”; the “glory that excelleth”; that which is “written in the fleshly tables of the heart,” and “remaineth.”
“No other testament law-teacher is sent of God. In the present dispensation, He only makes men ‘ministers of the new testament.’ It is called the ‘ministration of the Spirit’; therefore no one can receive or teach it without the gift of the Holy Spirit, excepting in the letter, which ‘killeth.’
“In verse 7 the ten words are called, ‘The ministration of death, written and engraven in stones.’ And though it was declared ‘glorious,’ it was ‘done away.’ ‘For if that which is done away was glorious [the law written on stones, see verse 7], much more that which remaineth is glorious’ (vs. 11). ‘That which remaineth’ is the new testament, of which God made Paul an ‘able minister.’ And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not look stedfastly to the end of that which is ‘abolished.’ The abolished law, we are told, was given through Moses, who at the time had his face vailed. Now turn to Exod. 34:28-33, and you will see that it was when he came down from the mount with the covenant in his hands that his face shone, and was vailed.
“In verse 14 the abolished law is plainly declared to be the ‘old testament.’ The old testament and the old covenant are the same thing. And though we have seen that it is strictly defined as the Ten Commandments, yet these being the statute basis of the entire old book, the whole volume is sometimes called the old diatheke—testament.
“On verse 13 we observe, If it were possible for any one to have always performed all moral duty, that person would stand in the highest glory of the law—justified. To this summit of legal glory we are raised by the first work of gospel grace. And then with ‘open face’—having left reading Moses—beholding the glory of the Lord in the glass of his Word, ‘we are changed into the same image [the complete image of Christ], from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.’ We are changed from glory of justification, the highest point of legal glory, to the glory of perfect holiness, which is the summit of gospel grace. ‘By the which will we are sanctified.’ Thus the second will places us far beyond where the first will could, even if we had kept it. And it is also the perfect and only law by which to live in this mount of new testament holiness.
“We can scarcely conceive how it were possible to employ words that more explicitly assert the abolition of that covenant which was written in the tables of stone. If we were to admit the division of the law into two laws, as the Adventists contend, and were held to prove that one of those laws was abolished, we certainly should find more abundant proof to dispose of that written on stone than of the ceremonial part. The reason is obvious. The former constituting the real covenant, the statutes of that nation, to which the latter were appended, it was only necessary to remove the statute basis, and, of course, all the rest goes with it.…And how very specific and unmistakable this language in 2 Cor. 3. All Bible readers know that nothing but the ten commandments were written in the stone tables, and it is affirmed that the very thing that had been ‘written and engraven in stones’ is abolished, and done away. Compare verses 7 and 11.
“With this and similar scriptures the law-teachers have no little trouble. They find themselves even in open hostility to the truth. What can they do? One says to us, ‘It was not the law, but “the ministration of death”; i. e., the annexed penalty of death for its violation.’ But the inspired testimony is that it was that which was written and engraven in stone, which was only the ten prohibitory laws, and not the penalties of death for their violation. So Mr. Adventist is bound by the Word of God; and the Scriptures cannot be broken. But let us look at that theory. Two things are set in contrast in this lesson. The first is called, ‘the ministration of death,’ ‘the ministration of condemnation,’ ‘the old testament’ (vss. 7, 9, 14). The second is called, the ‘ministration of the Spirit,’ ‘the ministration of righteousness,’ ‘the new testament’ (vss. 8, 9, 5). The former was written in stones; the latter is received by the Spirit, which is shed abroad in our hearts. The former is ‘abolished,’ ‘is done away’ (vss. 13, 11). The latter is ‘that which remaineth’ (vs. 11). So the old testament is done away, and the new testament, of which Christ is mediator, remains in force.
“But the old had a degree of glory notwithstanding it was ‘the ministration of death.’…The stone laws were glorious, ‘so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance’ (vs. 7). This was when he came down with the tables of the law in his hands. And it is also the ‘ministration of death,’ because death followed its violation. To minister, is to give; ministration, the act of giving. In Gal. 3:21 we are told the law could not ‘have given life.’ But, on the contrary, it could give death. Therefore in it was both glory and the ministration of death. But its glory was ‘done away,’ and also the thing itself that was glorious ‘is abolished.’ “—The Sabbath.
With the abolition of the Sinaitic covenant, the seventh-day Sabbath was taken away; for it lay in the heart of the abolished covenant.
All chapters from The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day.
The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. By H. M. Riggle, 1922. Life Assurance Ministries, Inc.
- The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day - October 2, 2021
- 27. Sunday-Keeping is Not the Mark of the Beast - July 8, 2020
- 26. The Pope and the Sabbath - July 2, 2020