Why Do Christians Worship on Sunday Instead of Saturday? Old Covenant, New Covenant, and the Sabbath

I'm Kiana, and I leveled up my business with Shopify.

Once I figured out that Shopify was a thing,

I never turned back.

I can create a site with my eyes closed.

Shopify thinks ahead of us, you know,

and it thinks about the customer more than anything.

Every day I'm thinking about some other new business.

But Shopify is doing it to me because it's so easy to use.

It's like I can't stop them addicted.

Start your free trial at Shopify.com.

Father, thank you for your word.

I thank you for the clarity it gives us.

And I thank you for Christ's resurrection on the first day of the week

and the impact that has for us in many respects.

And impacted throughout the church age, the worship

to always take place on this first day, Lord.

But I think that there is much deeper truth here regarding the old

and new covenants and the relationship between them.

And so I just pray this to be a blessed time to understand

why we do things the way we do.

I think there could be some churches maybe moving more toward Saturday nights

or other times, or as I think there is reason to emphasize Sunday

as a time to gather with other believers and exalt Christ.

So I pray that I become clear through our teaching time

and ask that you just give everyone understanding

and give me clarity as I teach.

And we pray this in Jesus' name.

Amen.

Amen.

Yeah, I do, thanks brother.

All right, who wants to run the mic for me this morning?

Anyone, any brave person out there?

All right, wonderful.

Thank you, Miss Small.

I'm glad I didn't say any brave young man.

OK, so this is giving you an idea really a discussion

about the old and new covenants.

So if you have that in mind, I believe this will make more sense.

So to understand why I do Christians worship on Sunday instead of Saturday,

we have to understand the difference between the old covenant

and the new covenant and the mediators for both.

So who's the mediator for the old covenant?

Just Moses, the mediator, the old covenant, exactly.

Who's the mediator of the new covenant?

Jesus says, OK.

So it's not simply a discussion about which day people prefer.

It's really a discussion about covenantal transition.

So Christ comes to fulfill the law, dies, rises again,

and there's a real dramatic change that takes place.

Christ's resurrection changes everything,

and this is one of those changes.

So let's start with Exodus 31.

Go ahead and look there.

We are going to be flipping around a lot.

If you have any questions, raise your hand.

Let me know.

I want you to see that as the old covenant belonged to Israel,

or the old covenant was made with Israel.

So to did the Sabbath, and when we say Sabbath,

I just want this understanding.

I'm referring to the seventh day of the week.

And can you guess why I actually even

have to make that statement, which I really

shouldn't have to make that statement?

Because some people have said that Sunday is the Sabbath.

Sunday, or the first day of the week,

has never been the Sabbath.

Now we can treat it as a day of rest and worship as we should.

But I think it's doing a disservice

to Scripture to refer to it as the Sabbath

when Scripture never does that.

So when I say the Sabbath, I am referring

to the seventh day of the week.

So Exodus 31.13, God says, you shall keep my Sabbaths.

For this is a sign between you, between me and you,

throughout your generations, and then you kind of say,

well, who's you?

Who's he talking to?

Come on, people.

Israel.

He's talking to Israel, which becomes clear in verse 17,

if you look there.

It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel.

So that's really clear.

That's what you call clarity, right?

God says the Sabbath is a sign between me and my people

of Israel.

So unless you think the church is Israel,

which I understand maybe in Presbyterian

or covenantal circles, there can be that view,

then you have to see that the Sabbath belong to Israel.

We, we, just as dispensationalists.

So dispensationalism versus covenantalism

has a handful of distinctions, but the primary distinction

relates to the relationship between Israel and the church.

So in covenantal circles, which are generally

Presbyterian circles or some reformed circles,

the idea is Israel became the church,

or the church is the new Israel.

So there's no distinction really between Israel and the church.

And that would mean essentially that whatever is happening

with Israel today or with the Jews today

would have no significance to us.

If Israel is not God's time clock,

prophetically or anything like that, in a covenantal view.

That's not our view, our view, which is a baptismistic

or dispensational view typically in baptismal circles

is that there's a clear distinction between Israel

and the church, there are two different groups,

two different plans and prophetic plans for them.

And the Israel continues today separately from the church.

Two distinct groups and God has a separate

and distinct plan for both.

And so what happens in the Middle East

or what happens with Israel is very significant to us

and Israel is God's time clock.

And so I probably don't do it as often as I should,

but I try to check Jerusalem news

and see things going on in the Middle East.

Fortunately, many of the Godly men I follow,

their stuff shows up in my social media

and they do a lot of the research for me.

So I can kind of see things that are happening.

But with a baptismistic or dispensational view

in that clear distinction, the church is not Israel.

Okay, any questions or additions to that?

Starting to think this might take

more than one Sunday, brother.

Okay, okay, Tim.

And just to be clear before Tim says anything,

this isn't a salvific issue.

Many of the people I really love,

like R.C. Sproul or Paul and Ted Trip,

I mean, people in Presbyterian Circus

all listen to their sermons.

These are great Godly men.

If they were conferences,

I would be very happy to listen to them.

I have listened to them when they come to Christian heritage

or have watched them online.

So these are kind of second tier non-s salvific issues.

But I do think they are pretty important

and they would probably be,

they could be tests of fellowship.

So I would say that if people came in,

they had strong Presbyterian views

that with us being a more baptismistic church,

that this probably wouldn't be the best fit for them.

Okay.

Might not be on, sorry Tim.

It wasn't.

There you go.

Well, it says Sabbath's plural.

So they're not just talking about,

they're not just talking about every seventh day,

they're talking also about other holy days, correct?

You nailed that.

And so if you remember there,

which I really enjoy and might try to do every

so many years or something,

because I do think it's that important,

the seven feasts have very prophetic significance.

And we are aware of some of the feasts

and their relationship to Christ,

like the Passover.

He is our Passover lamb.

He was buried during the feast of 11 bread.

His unleavened body was in the grave,

only then to be raised.

Like unfortunately we think of Pentecost

and for some years, sadly,

I didn't even know Pentecost was a feast.

I just thought it was Acts 2.

Okay, so Pentecost, go to Leviticus 23,

which outlines the seven feasts.

And each of those seven,

the four spring feasts and the three fall feasts,

the four spring feasts corresponding to Christ's first coming,

the three fall feasts corresponding to Christ's second coming.

So the feast of trumpets, the rapture,

the feast of tabernacles,

when Christ's tabernacles among us looking forward to the millennium,

the day of atonement,

when the individuals afflicted themselves.

That kind of sound strange,

right, a celebration or feast

when people afflicted themselves,

but that looking forward to or prefiguring the day of tribulation.

So immense prophetic significance

associated with the seven feasts.

I should probably preach on that every,

every so many years.

And the reason I mentioned that is

they were associated with Sabbath too.

So there were other Sabbaths beyond just the seventh day of the week,

associated with those,

those holy days or celebrations.

Is that pretty much what you meant?

Very good, Tim, thank you.

Any other questions or thoughts?

Okay, so important verses here we see

the Sabbath not presented as a covenant sign between God and the church,

sign between God and Israel and the old covenant,

mediated by Moses.

So if someone ever asked,

what covenant is the seventh day Sabbath associated with?

You're going to say the old covenant,

the one that was mediated by Moses.

And what's the other,

what's the other primary sign

between God and Israel?

Probably is the more prominent sign even than the Sabbath.

Circumcision, that's right,

to convert or proselytize

which some pagans did

to worship Yahweh or Jehovah

in the Old Testament,

they were to be circumcised.

And that was the sign between God and His people in the Old Testament.

And just as we don't care,

so Romans 2,

I believe it's Romans 2 at the toward the beginning of the chapter,

it says circumcision has some physical benefit,

but that's the only benefit associated with circumcision

under the new covenant.

There's no spiritual benefit whatsoever associated

with circumcision under the new covenant.

So whether you choose to or not

has no spiritual or moral value associated with it,

but you could argue it has physical value

based on Romans 2,

but there's no command.

Circumcision was always prefiguring

or foreshadowing a circumcision of the what of the heart.

That's exactly what a tearing or renting of the heart.

Exactly.

Okay.

Any other questions that's before we continue?

Okay.

Turn to Exodus 24.

The primary point I want to,

so there's, so point one,

the Sabbath belong to the Old Covenant,

given to Israel through Moses.

Now this point,

I just want you to see the Jesus Institute of the New Covenant

in His blood,

or with His blood.

And you might,

I suppose you have like great spiritual insight

if you knew God was going to establish a new covenant

which you could know based on Jeremiah 31,

you would know a new covenant was coming

and you might even be able to know

that it had to be instituted with blood

because the Old Covenant was instituted with blood.

And if there's going to be a superior covenant,

it's going to have to be instituted in a superior way,

is probably the way that I would say it.

Okay.

So Exodus 24,

because we're just looking at a few verse,

let me give you the context,

that contains the institution, the Old Covenant.

Your Bible's probably have a title for this,

what are some of the titles for this chapter?

Just blurt it out.

Covenant confirmed,

people confirm their covenant with God.

So people are going to agree to the terms of the Old Covenant

and then Moses is going to institute it

in verses six through eight.

Let's start at verse three for context.

By the way, Katie, want me to remind everyone about this.

This isn't just for young men,

fathers should come to,

so the conference will be this coming Saturday,

is a burden my son had that we're trying to support.

And so hope it's a blessed time.

I brought on a lot of D.J. coming to music,

Jake and I are doing some messages.

And I hope it's,

hope it's well attended by fathers and sons together.

I'll be bringing my boys to it.

Let me know if you have any questions about that.

So verse three,

Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord

and all the rules and all the people answered

with one voice and said,

all the words that the law has spoken,

all the words that the Lord has spoken we will do.

This is probably the biggest lie in the Old Testament.

Okay.

Because if there were 613 commands in the law

and they did not keep them,

they definitely did not do all of them.

And just to just see,

kind of understand something too,

that factors into this.

I said there are 613 commands.

How many laws were there?

This is a bit of a try.

There's one law, that's right.

This is important.

There's 613 commands and there's one law.

Now unfortunately if you start talking about multiple laws,

you're definitely not using scripture or language.

The old covenant had a law associated with it

or almost think of it like a constitution

that had many rules or commands in it,

but it was still one law.

Now the problem was seeing many laws

or saying, oh, there's a whole bunch of laws

in the Old Testament.

No, there might have been two.

I was talking to Pastor Nathan about this.

Prior to the mosaic law,

maybe you could argue that the original law

was donate from the tree.

You could, you could say there was an original law

and it had one command in it.

And we couldn't even do that, okay?

There was still conscience

because even prior to Moses giving the law,

it was still sinful to do what,

which we can see because individuals were judged for it.

What are some sins that come to mind?

Murder, cane-murdered able and God didn't say,

oh man, I hadn't given the mosaic law yet.

So we're not going to hold in responsible for that.

It's homosexuality.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed prior to the law.

The ancient world was flooded prior

to the mosaic law given.

So there was still morality associated with consciences.

These things were still wrong,

but in terms of actual laws given by God,

I'd argue you had the law in the garden

and then you had the mosaic law.

The mosaic law had 613 commands.

And then in the New Testament,

I believe it's in James 2.

I think it's James 2.10, the language is,

if you've broken one part of the law,

you've broken the whole law, right?

That's really important to understand

because I think most people believe that they're righteous

because they think they keep many laws

or they think they keep most of the law.

No, they don't.

You watch probably, what's the gentlemen?

Ray Comfort, you know, go through the 10 Commandments

and show people their sinfulness.

No, you do not keep the commands.

You're definitely a lawbreaker.

The law is like a window.

You throw a rock through a window.

Now, a kid might try to say,

well, I'd broke part of the window,

but I kept, you know, most of us not broken.

But we would say that window's broken, right?

That's the same with the law.

If you break part of the law,

you're a lawbreaker, you've broken it.

Okay, any questions or thoughts on that before we continue?

Okay, so verse 4, Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord.

He rose early in the morning, built an altar

at the foot of the mountain, 12 pillars,

according to the 12 Tribes of Israel.

He sent young men of the people of Israel

who offered burn offerings and sacrifice peace offerings

of oxen to the Lord.

So Moses tells the people everything the covenant entails.

People agree to it.

Looks like the covenant is ratified at this point,

but there's still one more important step

which verses 6 through 8 record

and notice the emphasis on blood.

So you would think, hey, it's ratified

because everyone agreed to it, right?

Nope.

There's something missing.

It must be ratified with blood.

Moses took half of the blood and put it in basements

and half of the blood he threw against the altar.

He took the book of the covenant,

which is just another way to refer to the old covenant

or the Moses' law, read in the hearing of the people

and they said, here they are lying again.

All the Lord has spoken we will do and will be obedient.

Verse 8, Moses took the blood.

They were on the people and said,

behold the blood of the covenant

that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.

So you got the word blood four times in three verses.

Now the covenant's ratified.

And that's why Hebrews 9, 18 says,

not even the first covenant could be inaugurated

or instituted without blood.

So that's a necessity for a covenant to be instituted.

Now who can kind of anticipate where I'm going with this

or why I'm emphasizing that?

But if you want a covenant, you got to have bloodshed.

Why am I stressing that?

Yeah, we're looking to the new covenant, right?

We can't have a new covenant without Christ's blood.

So if you're going to bring a new covenant

there better be some bloodshed or it won't be ratified.

You might agree to it.

You might have the details of it in Jeremiah 31 to 34.

But you might understand something really interesting

in John 3 when Jesus is talking to Nicodemus.

Who remembers kind of the rebuke that Jesus gave Nicodemus?

Yeah, I'm like, wow.

So Jesus is talking about being a born again.

He's talking about a new bird.

We read John 3 and it's like, wow, this is incredible.

It seems new.

It seems novel.

And he tells Nicodemus, you're the teacher of Israel.

And you don't know this stuff.

What's the deal?

I mean, you should know more.

You should know better than this.

Wow.

So the whole point is that according to Jesus' words

to Nicodemus, there was enough evidence

in the Old Testament regarding a new bird

or a transformed heart that Nicodemus should have known.

And so I believe like in Ezekiel, I'll take your heart

of stone and I'll give you a heart of flesh.

So there were those verses that looked forward

to the transformative work of the gospel.

Beyond just kind of the outward transformation

that the law was attempting to accomplish

it just didn't deal with the heart like the gospel does.

And we know that, right?

No matter how many commands, no matter how much you tell

your kids what to do or not to do,

that's not changing their hearts, is it?

Only the gospel can do that.

So you're provide the law to your children.

You provide commands.

You are striving for outward reform,

or conformity, behavior,

which can be accomplished through commands.

But for the actual transformation

in the gospel must do that.

And I'm really, and I think this is especially

evident in conservative homeschool circles,

which most of us run in.

And I'm a big fan of having rules or commands

for our children.

But sometimes you'll see children.

They will outwardly conform and they'll look good

by kind of that idea in Matthew 20th

of like whitewash tunes of it, right?

The kids might look really good outwardly.

But then some of those same children,

they can leave the home.

And then they're not walking with the Lord.

And why is that?

Because they were following rules.

But hearts hadn't been transformed,

which only happens.

So give your kids rules.

Kids must have commands to follow.

We must make sure we're preaching the gospel

because that's the only thing that's going to save them,

save them, and transform their hearts.

Rules, commands will not do that.

Any thoughts or anything?

Okay.

All right, and that's real.

And if you understand what I just said,

then you understand why we had to have a transition

from what to what?

What I just said was actually an illustration

of why we had to move from the old covenant

to the new covenant, right?

Because the old covenant's a bunch of rules, yeah.

And the new covenant is transformative,

dealing with the heart.

And the old dealing with the outward,

the new dealing with the inward.

Okay, so now turn to Luke 22.

I think probably one of the best examples in scripture

of outward conformity or behavior,

absent of inward change is with Jeholyada.

You guys imagine Jeholyada?

Wait, is it?

No, Jehoash.

Jeholyas and priests.

Jehoash was the baby king hidden in the temple.

You want to talk about it?

Some people say,

oh, I'm going to say,

I'm going to say,

I'm going to say,

I'm going to say,

I'm going to say,

I'm going to say,

I'm going to say,

I imagine I'm going to say,

I'm going to say,

I'm going to say,

well, those men face a lot ofems.

They face a lot of kings,

you know,

and some people say,

oh, homeschool family shelter鬼 kids.

Well, any reasonable person,

sheltershilders to kids,

how Moreover, that's creative,

but anyway,

you want to talk about a super shelter

upbringing,

where did Jehoash grow up?

The temple you never stepped outside

because it was been killed.

When my kids get upside and think they're too sheltered,

I'm like,

look at Jehoash,

you've got tons of freedom, okay?

and Jehovah's is like, grows up in the temple,

Jehoi to the priest is his adoptive father,

and then as soon as Jehoi to die, he just rebels.

So he looks like this great, godly young man

that his heart wasn't changed

and that he goes off the deep end, murders, murders,

his own, basically, stepbrother, just terribly wicked.

But he looked great, outwardly,

until Jehoi to die, and then just reminded him

of how they can have a children

and they haven't embraced the gospel.

We were having a conversation

or I tried to read with my boys on Saturday,

we didn't get to do yesterday morning,

so I took him last night to go to our reading together

through a book and listening to them share

and one of my sons shares.

So I would say doubts.

I tried to distinguish between doubts and unbelief,

and I think we all should.

Who has doubts?

Just right, every believer has doubts, okay?

When your children share doubts, don't chastise them.

Who has unbelief?

Unbelievers, right?

Those are distinct.

So, but every believer has doubts, nothing is perfect.

Our faith isn't perfect.

Douts are okay, don't push, your kids will never share

if you chastise them when they share doubts.

One of my kids started sharing about some doubts

and then kind of spreads to a conversation about doubts

and I just realized I went home to talk to Katie

and I said, yeah, we need to pray, our kids are converted.

You know, we need to pray.

Do I think the boys I was with are saved?

I believe I think that.

I see evidence, but I could also wonder if maybe they're,

I mean, I could be wrong.

They could look a certain way.

I'm just saying we have to really be praying

that God saves our children

and keep preaching the gospel to them.

Okay, so now Luke 22, 19, this is the last supper

or this is Passover.

Jesus took the bread when He had given things.

He broke it, He gave it to them.

He said, this is my body, which is given for you.

Do this in remembrance of me and here

and likewise the cup after they hit it and sang

and this is it.

This cup that is poured out for you

is the new covenant in my blood.

So do you see the parallelism, which I think Jesus

had in mind, the parallelism between Jesus words

and Luke 22 and the words of Moses in Exodus 24,

Exodus 24, where it was when He said that, Exodus 24.

So here's my point.

The mediator of the old covenant, Moses said this

and then Jesus the media of the new covenant said this

and their words are almost identical.

They're strong parallelism

because the institution of the new covenant

resembles the institution of the old covenant,

the institution of the old covenant

with blood from an animal sacrifice,

the institution of the new covenant with the blood

of Christ himself.

He said, this cup that is poured out for you

is the new covenant in my blood.

Exodus 24, 8, Moses says, behold, the blood of the covenant,

the Lord is made with you in accordance with all these words.

And I preached a whole sermon when we were in Luke 22,

if you want to go back to listen to it.

The title is, I didn't put the title.

You could actually, but I contrast

with the old and new covenant.

And so as in Jeremiah 31 and I contrast

with the old covenant with the new covenant,

and it's not that the old covenant was bad,

and this is kind of the language in Hebrews, right?

The old covenant was what?

It was good, but the new covenant is better.

So that's what we're dealing with.

We're not dealing with bad and good.

We're dealing with good and better.

So we would never say that the mosaic law was bad.

It's just that the gospel is better.

And law and grace are juxtaposed.

So the law and gospel are not the same.

So when I say the gospel is better than law,

that's a very appropriate thing to say,

because the law is not gospel.

The biticus is not gospel.

It is law.

And they are not to be read or understood.

They are not to be read or understood the same.

When you give your kids law, you're not giving them gospel.

And when you give them gospel, you're not giving them law.

They're actually opposites of each other.

Now they need law, they need commands,

but that's not the same.

Who has the mic?

That's what we wanted.

I wanted to say something.

I just thought it'd be good to distinguish why is it better?

It's not that one is superior to the other as far as the means of righteousness,

Paul laid out the argument in Romans.

There's two ways to be righteous before God,

either keep the law or place your faith in Christ.

And so both are directions, if you will, as far as this is how you have a right relationship with God.

But the gospel is better because of our sinfulness and our fallibility and our limitations.

The gospel is better for us than the law is good if that makes sense.

Just to clarify, he found something out.

Well, let me ask you this.

Why is the law necessary?

Well, Romans 3.20 says, through the law comes knowledge of sin.

So the law sets up the gospel.

The law provides the opportunity to preach the gospel to your children.

Or to anyone, not just for children, any evangelism should involve law

because you must recognize our sinfulness before they see their need to be saved.

So the law is crucial to be preached to our children.

So they see their sinfulness, which then gives you the opportunity to preach the gospel, right?

So the law sets up the gospel in that respect.

So you preach in the law to your children, you're helping them in some of the worst.

The worst students I ever taught, I could always tell why they were very bad when I met their parents.

Because they were the parents who thought their primary responsibility was making excuses for their children.

And so when I would see very bad students,

and then I would talk to the parents and the parents would become lawyers

and try to blame everything on any other student or find any reason their child wasn't wrong.

I thought, OK, this is why your student, your child, acts the way he or she does.

And it's going to be really bad probably when that child is a teenager.

And so really good parents are saying, OK, Mr. Loppier,

we support what you're saying.

That makes sense.

We're seeing these things at home.

How can we work through this or help this?

So we want to preach a lot of our children.

So they see their sinfulness, which gives us opportunity to then say, yes, we fail.

We sin.

Thank God for the righteousness of Christ.

Thank God for the grace that saves us.

And so do you have any thoughts on that?

OK, or any other thoughts or anything?

I'm not a parenting expert.

You know, we're working through this regularly trying to figure things out, praying for wisdom as parents too.

So anyone else wants to share that?

I appreciate that.

OK, so many ways the new covenant is better than the old.

And one of them is just the blood that ratified them.

Let me say it more time.

So many ways the new covenant is better than the old covenant.

And one of the ways is the blood that ratified those covenant.

So the blood of the old covenant ratified with animals, blood,

and the blood of the new covenant ratified with the blood of Christ.

All right, each covenant now that we now work in toward the Sabbath,

each covenant also had its own law.

And I think sometimes people don't know this.

But turn to 1 Corinthians 9.

This might be the clearest place that shows two separate laws,

an old covenant mosaic law, and a new covenant law.

1 Corinthians 9.20.

So the context is Paul's talking about the lengths that he would go

to win people to Christ.

Say that more time.

Paul's talking about the lengths he would go,

the things he would do to win people to Christ.

And one of the things he says he'd do is when he's speaking to Jews,

and we see this, what did Paul do with Timothy?

Which, what did Paul do with Timothy that would shock you?

He circumcised him.

Well, because Paul's angry, Paul is upset

when people are commanding circumcision.

Because he knew it was not part of the new covenant.

He knew that it wasn't necessary.

And it was legalistic to add that to the law.

And so it's interesting that Paul of all people who is contending,

believe it's an Acts 15, upset about the commands being imposed

on these Jewish believers to be saved, acting like they had to keep

the mosaic law and be circumcised to be saved,

would then circumcise Timothy.

So why did he do that?

Because if you don't understand that, you could say,

OK, well then we should be circumcised.

Everyone should be for spiritual reasons,

because Paul circumcised Timothy.

Why did he do it?

So that's the thing that you don't have to say.

Yeah, Paul wanted Timothy to be received by Jews.

That's it.

And he knew Jews weren't going to be listening well to him.

If, and maybe Jake's, maybe Jake's writer,

maybe Jake's more correct, maybe Jake's

corrector than I am.

Because I didn't even think of it like that.

Maybe that it wasn't necessary to be able to go in the center.

I was just thinking in terms of credibility,

that perhaps just even go to the synagogue worship

that was a necessity.

And so he's even expected, if you want to travel with me,

then you need to be circumcised to the Jews

who will receive you well.

OK, so here, in verse 20, 1 Corinthians 9, 20,

Paul said to the Jews, I became as a Jew

in order to win Jews.

To those under the law, which would be Jews,

I became as one under the law.

So he says, I put myself back under the law,

even though not being myself under the law,

that I might win those under the law.

And the law that he's referring to is the mosaic law.

So he says, I'm not an old covenant.

I'm not part of the old covenant.

I'm not a member of the old covenant.

But I'm still willing to act like I'm under the old covenant

and keep the mosaic law if it will make the gospel

more receptive to my Jewish brethren.

All right, and we see that.

And I'll say this, if you haven't repented,

there's a sense in which every person who's not a Christian

is still under the law.

Does it make sense why I'm saying that?

Whether they think it or not or whether they want to be,

every person who's not born again,

who hasn't repented and put faith in Christ,

is under the law.

They don't see it that way.

But when they die and they stand before the Lord,

guess what will judge them?

Guess the standard for them.

So they have two choices.

You can be saved two ways.

You do literally have two ways to be saved.

You can put faith in Christ or you can keep the law perfectly.

There is one person who was saved by keeping the law perfectly.

And that's Jesus.

But you actually can't even do it because you're from Adam.

And he's not.

And I don't know if you ever thought about that.

But one of the reasons that Jesus had an earthly mother,

but he did not have an earthly father.

He did legally through Joseph to simply establish his claim

to the Davidic throne.

So Jesus did need Joseph because you needed

the claim to the throne came through which parent?

The father, right?

So Jesus did still need Joseph for his claim

to the Davidic throne or to be the son of David.

And that came through Joseph.

Joseph is a descendant of David.

But he could not have been a physical descendant of Joseph

or else he would have not been inherited Adam's sin.

That headship, sinning through Adam,

when Adam sinned it as though we sinned

and he would have inherited that guilt.

Is that, would you say that?

Do you agree with what I said?

I think you used different language

because we were talking about this in my office the other day.

He would have had a sinful nature.

Okay.

But he needed to have the nature of sorry.

You don't believe we inherit Adam's guilt.

You believe we inherit guilt.

I think the ratify Adam's guilt when we choose to sin

because other places in scripture that talk about this,

this children will not be put to death

or punished for the sins of the father.

But we all have a sin nature

and that's what makes Christ unique

is even though he had a body

and this is careful language Paul uses is Romanates

is that he did not have sinful flesh.

He had a body that was weak

or I'm trying to think of the language in Romans 8.

He did not have a sin nature

but his body was made in the likeness of sinful flesh

meaning had limitations.

But he had to have the divine nature

because that's what Peter promises us

and so I can Peter one,

that's how we overcome corruption

is being a partaker of that divine nature

and that could only come from God.

It can't come from another Adam.

Okay, I'm still thinking about what he had said

in my office the other day which is why I asked him

and I hadn't heard this before

that we don't inherit Adam's guilt.

We only inherit his sinful nature

and so I'm still processing that

and that's why I asked Pastor Nathan to say that

because there's Romans 5, you got something freely.

What do you get freely from Christ's salvation, right?

But guess who else gave you something for free?

Adam did.

So you get free gifts from Adam and Jesus, right?

And you read Romans 5 and it's all talking about

how freely you get salvation from Christ

and just as freely you got,

and this is what Pastor Nathan

are talking about, something from Adam

and I'm in at least the sinful nature from Adam.

I'm trying to figure out whether you also get Adam's guilt

or not.

So just to clarify too, we received death as well.

Yeah, right.

So even even Christ had that condemnation

passed on to him from Adam

because he was born of a woman

but not the rabbit trail too far

but then if we did receive his condemnation of guilt

then we have an issue with babies

whether or not they go to heaven

because then they also have the guilty sentence

on them as well.

Okay, that's a good argument and that's a good argument

and I believe babies are in a certain good heaven

which I've preached a couple times here.

So, okay, that's interesting.

And so the reason in Romans 5 or the reason

which is it is explained in Romans 5

because see the law wasn't given until Sinai

but why were people dying from Adam to Moses?

Have you thought, if the law brings guilt

or the law brings sin in the sense it reveals sin

and the law brings guilt,

well then if you have no law you can't have guilt.

So then why were people dying from Adam to Moses?

Well they were dying because of what was inherited

from Adam, his sinful nature.

The law didn't have to be given for people to die

or else nobody would have died from Adam to Moses

and this is explained by Paul.

I think it's around Romans 5, 13 to 15.

So you can read it and it's very fascinating to consider

that he's making the point, he's just arguing

people were dying from Adam to Moses

and it could not have been because they were breaking the law.

There must be something else at stake,

there must be something else at play here

because the law wasn't given until Sinai

so why were they dying and he's arguing

you're dying because of what you received from Adam,

which is death.

And so you got that freely, you got to celebrate,

you got death from Adam.

So, all right, yes sir, where's the, run that over to Jake?

In Romans 5, was it verse 14, you're kind of alluding to.

I'll just read it.

It says, nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses

even over those who had not sinned

according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam.

So you have death reigning even where there's no law.

So we had to have inherited something.

I mean, I would say the guilt, but, okay.

Yeah, I don't know, it's an interesting discussion at least.

So you agree, we got sinful nature from Adam.

Yeah.

We're discussing whether we got guilt or not from him.

So, okay, now in these verses,

you just see Paul saying, I'll put myself back

under the law and then he says, I'm not even under it.

I'm not even under the law, but I'll do this to end Jews.

And I'm saying, if you haven't repented

by faith in Christ, you're still under that law

because that law is going to judge you.

That's the standard you must keep.

Now look at the next verse here.

When he talks about winning Gentiles, verse 21,

to those outside the law, I became as one outside the law.

You can't pause there.

Now he's saying, I became outside the mosaic law.

I'm not under the mosaic law, but the notice this,

is it in parentheses in your Bibles,

a parenthetical statement?

He says, not being outside the law of God,

but I'm under the law of Christ.

So Paul says there is another law separate

from the mosaic law.

He says, I'm not under the mosaic law,

but I am under the law of Christ.

So that means that even if you're not part of the old covenant,

there is still a law to observe or keep.

And it is the law of Christ.

And it makes sense to be called the law of Christ,

just like the mosaic law or the old covenant,

just like the old covenant law is named after

the old covenant's mediator, Moses,

it makes sense that the new covenant's law

would be named after the new covenant's mediator

and that mediator is Christ.

So he says, I'm under the law of Christ

that I might be able to win those who are outside

of the mosaic law.

And that's referring to Gentiles

because Jews, part or Israel, part of the old covenant

under the mosaic law, Gentiles outside the mosaic law.

And Paul says, when I'm trying to win those,

I won't be under the mosaic law,

but then Paul has this concern.

This is what's going on.

When Paul writes, I became his one outside the law,

he has this concern that we would read this

and think that he's lawless.

Or we would read this and believe that Paul is saying

new covenant believers, or those who are not part

of the mosaic covenant, can just do whatever they want,

behave however they want and nothing's wrong.

License to sin or license to live however you want.

And so to prevent us from thinking that, he then says,

even though I'm not outside of the law of Christ itself.

OK, any questions?

Does that make sense?

The main thing I just wanted you to see there

is that there definitely are two different laws,

one associated with the old covenant,

one associated with the new covenant.

The book of Galatians, so if you want to just kind of think

of that book, it's like our Declaration of Independence,

that's what I would say.

If Galatians had another name or like a subtitle,

it would be the Declaration of Independence from the law.

It's all about our independence from the mosaic law.

But even in the Declaration of Independence from the law,

or even in Galatians, listen to this, Galatians 6-2,

bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.

So even the premier book about not being

under the mosaic law still communicates

that we are under a law, and that is the law of Christ.

OK, any questions or thoughts for we continue?

That was just the next point I wanted to make.

OK, turn to Hebrew 7.

So Hebrew is being about Christ and being better.

And he, one of the ways Christ is better

is he mediates a better covenant,

or he's the mediator of a better covenant,

that's the new covenant.

But verse 12 makes a super important point here.

Hebrew 7.12, when there's a change in the priesthood,

there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

So if you change priesthood, priesthoods,

you must also change the law because the laws

of social of the priesthood.

And you know that because the priests are the Levites.

So let's back up a bit.

So 12 tribes.

Judah is the kingly tribe.

The tribe the kings come from.

Levi is, or the Levitical tribe is the tribe

the priesthood came from.

So in Exodus 32, their golden calf is worshiped.

And the Levites, not the priest, but literally the tribe

of Levi, the people from the tribe of Levi, the Levites,

were willing to execute those who worshiped the golden calf.

Now think about this, when those Levites were executing

those who worshiped the golden calf,

who were they basically executing?

All right?

There, yeah, cousins or other Israelites, not Gentiles,

not pagans.

But that was the warranted punishment for that sin.

And these Levites were willing to go

through the nation of Israel and execute those people

with the base of sin I had been engaging in that

to base behavior, bowing down to the golden calf.

And God looked at the tribe of Levi,

and he basically, this is my loose paraphrase,

said, I'm so impressed with that the Levites have done,

I'm going to set them apart as a tribe to be the priest,

unto me, and have the tabernacle,

because there's a tabernacle at that time,

but then temple worship will be assigned to them.

They will be able to, and what are some of the advantages

of that?

They had greatest access to God.

They were able to enter the tabernacle and the temple.

They had the most intimacy with the Lord.

They were the priests.

They were the only ones in the,

like we believe in the priesthood of every believer

is one of my big problems with the Catholic Church.

First, in the two fires says there's no mediator

except Christ.

Now we believe in the priesthood of all believers

in the sense that every believer has access to God,

whereas unto the old covenant only the priests did,

and those were the Levites.

And so is a blessing for the Levites to be pulled out

from the other 12 tribes.

And then if you've ever wondered this,

to maintain the integrity of 12,

because of its significance,

that's why two of Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh,

brought the integrity of 12 back.

So when Joseph's, or when Levites removed,

how many tribes do you have now?

You have 11, but you need 12.

So Joseph has two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh,

and those two sons bring the number back up to 12.

And you could kind of look as you read through Genesis,

and who seems to be like the exalted?

Who seems to be the exalted of Jacob's sons?

Not Judah, but Joseph, right?

And then you're like, well, why is there so much about Joseph,

but he doesn't really seem exalted?

Well, one way Joseph was exalted was he was able to have

two tribes come from him.

And any list of the 12 tribes,

sometimes Ephraim's included, sometimes Joseph's included,

sometimes Manasseh's included, but there's always only 12.

And okay, any questions on that?

That makes sense.

All right, so the Levites associated with the law,

associated with the old covenant,

but if you're gonna change priesthoods

based on this verse, you must also change the law.

Okay, now, talking about, and I was just,

with Jack Bosky yesterday, is he here today?

No, he's teaching over there, that's right.

He actually told me he wouldn't be here,

because he's gonna be teaching over there.

And so I can talk about him,

because the life's talking about people

and they're not around.

Okay, so Jack asked him a good question.

He says, he said, hey, so how can Christ,

you know, I was with Abbey,

or realist Bible, so they do a reading,

and he says, how can Christ be our high priest

when priests can only come from the tribe of Levi,

and Jesus is from the tribe of Judah?

And I said, Jack, you just extended out our meeting

by about two hours as I explained this to you.

And you got me really excited to talk about this, okay?

So, the mosaic covenant associated with the Levitical priesthood,

or even more specifically, you could say the Aaronic priesthood,

because it was the descendants of Aaron, specifically,

who were the priests.

Now, Jesus is from the tribe of Judah,

though that brings up a very significant question

to the Jewish mind.

How can we embrace this man, our Messiah, as a king and priest,

because Zechariah did prophesy that the Messiah would be king and priest

if he came from the tribe of Judah,

and priests can only come from the tribe of Levi.

Well, Jesus wasn't a priest according to the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood.

He's a priest according to the order of...

I wasn't on Andrew to say that.

Yeah, we've talked about this a lot.

So, he's going to be of the Melchizedekian priesthood.

Jesus is going to be of the Melchizedekian priesthood.

So, now, here's the other...

Here's where it gets really interesting.

It only matters that Jesus is from the Melchizedekian priesthood

if that priesthood is superior.

If the Melchizedekian priesthood is not superior to the Levitical priesthood,

literally the whole book of Hebrews breaks down, right?

Because Hebrews is all about Jesus being better,

but if he's from an inferior priesthood,

then now people are going to say,

well, I'm not going to follow this guy of an inferior priesthood.

I'll follow the superior priesthood, the Levitys.

So, and this is one of those really fascinating, wonderful places and scripture

that allows us to see that it must be written by God and not by man.

I think it's in Genesis 14, Abraham meets this very mysterious man,

a Melchizedek, who is priest and king.

And in the interaction between Abraham and Melchizedek,

who is shown to be superior?

Melchizedek is because the greater blesses the lesser.

By all definitions, which is what Hebrews says,

the lesser is always blessed by the greater

and Melchizedek blessed Abraham versus Abraham blessing.

Melchizedek.

Okay, now a moment ago, we were talking about Adam and us,

let's say, sinning through Adam,

or if you want to say like this, like we're in Adam's body,

or we're in Adam's loins in a sense.

So, when Adam sinned, it's as though we sinned.

Okay, now follow me on this.

So, Abraham has Isaac, Isaac has Jacob, Jacob has Levi.

Levi has the Levitys and the Levitys are the ones

who receive tithes from the people, right?

The Levitys receive all of the tithes from the people.

So, if, you know, what are those little dolls,

China ones, what are they?

What?

Is that the ones where you open them

and there's always a little smaller one

and they go out like that?

Okay, whatever those are called,

kind of think of that with Abraham.

And if you open up enough of them,

you finally get to all the priesthood

that's bound up inside Abraham.

And when Abraham meets Melchizedek,

Abraham gives Melchizedek a tithe.

Abraham had gotten all the spoil from rescuing.

So, the way God ordained this, I mean,

it's really incredible.

The more it still amazes me after all these years,

the Abraham goes to rescue lot.

He gets all the spoil from battle.

He leaves the battle and he happens very coincidentally, right?

Just lucky to run into Melchizedek

and be able to give Melchizedek a tithe

before tithing is commanded in the mosaic law,

which shows us even a superior form of tithing

because God wants giving done voluntarily, right?

So, Abraham wasn't even commanded

by the law to give a tithe.

So, he gives a tithe in a superior way

by doing it voluntarily.

Now, when Abraham gives this tithe to Melchizedek,

it was really like who was giving a tithe

through Abraham.

Is that a stretch?

Are you guys following me?

Is this confusing or not?

Does this make sense?

Okay.

Abraham has Isaac, Isaac has Jacob, Jacob has Levi.

Levi's sons become the priests, the Levites.

The Levites are the ones who collect the tithes from the people.

So, if you want to give a tithe, you go to the temple,

you give it to the Levites, okay?

Now, if you go to Abraham's,

so if you just think of that analogy,

this headship analogy,

then when Adam sinned, it's like we sinned in Adam.

We sinned through Adam, so it's like his sin became our sin.

Well, if you understand that, then when Abraham gave a tithe

to Melchizedek, it's really like the Levites inside

of Abraham gave a tithe to Melchizedek.

Does that make sense?

The end, so here's another way to look at it.

The individuals who received the tithe, the Levites,

gave a tithe.

That's just not how it happens.

The people who get the tithe don't give a tithe.

So, the superiority is being shown in that the individuals

who received the tithe, the Levites,

are giving a tithe through Abraham to Melchizedek.

Okay, back there to Audrey.

It's really cool that you were pointing that out

because the order of Melchizedek was in essence first

and then it was kind of put on hold until Jesus came

and then it was reinstated.

Yeah, and what Audrey's mentioning is a pretty well-accepted

hermeneutic, which I've shared before,

it's called the Principle of First Mention.

So, when biblical scholars are attempting to understand

a word's meaning, they will often look at its first use

in Scripture, believing that that first use gives

the truest and clearest sense of that word.

Well, as you can imagine, there are many words first used

in Genesis.

I remember Andrew gave a community devotion one time

and he discussed this and he talked about the word love

and the first time the word love is used.

Did you talk about in the Gospels or John 316 for God's

or loves the world?

So scholars will look at the way the word love,

the way word is used first in Scripture,

sometimes first in the Old Testament,

sometimes first in the New Testament,

and sometimes first in a book.

Well, the word priest occurs first in Genesis 14

regarding Melchizedek.

Well, that's kind of interesting because who sort of

look like a priest?

I'll give you a hint.

He got off the ark and offered his sacrifice.

So Noah sort of looks like a priest,

but he's never called a priest, even though he's doing

some priestly duties.

That title is reserved for Melchizedek,

who's the first priest and thereby the truest

and greatest priest.

Now, it really begs a question because there's like nothing,

he's like Balum, he just shows up,

there's nothing really about him.

But Hebrew says that the way Melchizedek shows up

super mysteriously makes him look like this almost

immortal being because Genesis is the book of genealogies

and Melchizedek has no genealogy.

It doesn't say where he came from, who he came from,

nothing about him.

But it's deliberate because if you,

and that's what's really great,

I know I'm going on a bit of a rabbit trail here,

but I'll just do that because I want to.

Okay.

When you see these things,

you really see how God wrote Scripture

because if you don't have Hebrews

or you don't have the New Testament,

when Melchizedek looks like this immortal being,

you would just sort of wonder why he looks that way

until you understand he's a type or shadow of Christ.

And his Melchizedek's, and I'm using this word loosely,

immortality, he wasn't literally immortal.

Some people do think he was a Christophani or a pre-incarnate

picture type of, or not picture type,

he would actually be Christ.

They think he's a Christophani, actually Christ,

not a picture type.

Excuse me, I don't think that because Hebrew 7 says

he's like Jesus in these ways.

I mean, if I'm wrong about that, it's not a big deal.

But anyway, the way he looks immortal in Genesis 14,

you come to understand through Hebrews

that that's God's way of allowing him to look just like Jesus,

which is really pretty incredible.

Well, when Abraham meets Melchizedek,

two things, there's a few exchanges,

there's also bread and wine,

you've got communion being foreshadowed there,

it's a really incredible,

one of the most incredible unions in the Old Testament,

meetings in the Old Testament.

It kind of rivals like Jacob and Esau

when they see each other or when Jacob meets Pharaoh,

and it's probably even greater than those.

So Abraham and Melchizedek meet,

and here's the two things that happen.

Abraham gives Melchizedek a tithe,

Melchizedek blesses Abraham.

So when Abraham gives Melchizedek a tithe,

the Levites are tithing through Abraham to Melchizedek,

and because Melchizedek was the one who blessed Abraham,

Melchizedek is shown to be superior or greater than Abraham.

So that means his priesthood

is even greater than the priesthood

that's going to come from Abraham.

So the Melchizedek, so here's the whole point.

The Melchizedekian priesthood

is greater than the Levitical priesthood.

Well, if Jesus is associated with the Melchizedekian priesthood,

then that shows he's part of a priesthood that's superior to the Levitical priesthood

and then should be embraced as high priest.

So then the question becomes,

well, do we have evidence that Jesus is from the Melchizedekian priesthood?

And we do, so it's kind of like think like this.

Abraham and Melchizedek, 2000 BC,

you jump forward 1000 years to 1000 BC, you've got David.

You jump forward another 1000 years, you've got Jesus.

Here's Jesus, here's Abraham and Melchizedek.

Right in the middle is David who writes Psalm 110,

and I believe it's verse 4,

that David says when the Messiah comes,

he will be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Now, if Psalm 110 was like a New Testament verse,

or if that verse wasn't there, let's just say Paul, let me say like this.

Let's just say,

Paul writes to the Ephesians and says,

hey, the Messiah is going to be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Would that have any credibility with the Jews?

Just say no.

Okay, it wouldn't, would it?

But what or who does have great credibility with the Jews?

David does, and the Psalms do.

And so when Paul or anyone wants to argue about Christ's superior priesthood,

or let me say this, when anyone wants to argue that the Messiah is going to be

from the order or priest according to the order of Melchizedek,

you go to Psalm 1104,

which the Jews can't argue with, it comes from their scriptures,

and Psalm 1104 prophesies that when the Messiah comes,

he will not be of the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood,

which was Psalm 1104, was written after the Levitical priesthood was established.

So it was written after the law was given.

It was written 500 years after Moses.

So you've got Abraham, about 2000 BC.

You've got Moses about 1500 BC.

You jump forward 500 years to David.

So when David wrote Psalm 110, the Levitical priesthood had existed for about five centuries.

So that's tremendous.

So David writes after the Levitical priesthood has established that the Messiah

will be according to a different priesthood than Melchizedek in one,

which then allows Jesus to be those two offices of priest and king,

which nobody, you know, Uzzi learned the hard way.

You're going to be king, you can't go in the temple and offer incense and be priest,

or you're going to get leprosy.

And so it's a really pretty tremendous way for Jesus to be from the tribe of Judah

and also be, have the priesthood that's superior that allows him to be the high priest for us.

Okay, now, in Hebrews 7-12, it says, if there's a change in the priesthood,

there's necessarily a change in the law as well.

But there's more to talk about there that I probably won't finish this morning.

But you can kind of anticipate this, right?

If the priesthood has changed, the law must be changed.

You can't have the priesthood changing without the law changing.

So, yes, past nothing. Good.

Yeah, I want to.

I think Hebrews makes mention of this too.

Melchizedek is the contrast between Melchizedek and Aaron.

His Aaron's role in priesthood was always coming from behind to make atonement for sin not being righteous enough.

But Melchizedek's name means king of righteousness, which means it is an accomplished righteousness

that he can now give rather than trying to make up for people year after year with the sacrifice.

He's accomplished it because he lived the perfect life.

He attained what was necessary to have a right, for a man to have a right relationship with God.

That was an interesting contrast between the two priesthoods as well.

Yeah, well said.

That's a deep, deep point, Pastor Nathan just made.

If you've heard what he said in associating Melchizedek's ministry with righteousness versus trying to catch up

and always be associated with sin and offering sacrifice, that's your point, right? That's a good point.

Okay, well, we'll resume at Hebrews 7-12.

And if you want to do a little homework, just read through Hebrews 7.

And this is what you're going to do.

You're going to say, oh man, we thought Pastor Scott just made all that stuff up because he was so sharp.

No, but I just told you what Hebrews 7 says.

I didn't make any of that up.

It's all outlined there.

You're going to read that and be like, oh, this is what he was talking about.

We just saw the out all this deep spiritual insight.

No, I don't have all that deep spiritual insight.

I was just recounting what the previous verses say, read it as a family, be blessed.

You've got the background.

Read Genesis 14.

I think it's around verse 14 to 18 about Abraham meeting Melchizedek.

And then go ahead and read Hebrews 7.

You'll be very blessed by that.

And then we'll pick up at Hebrews 7-12 next Sunday.

Tim?

Yep.

Psalm 110 verse 4.

I think.

Okay, good.

So I'm glad you guys checked.

I didn't have it on my note.

So anything else for you closed?

Okay, Father, I thank you for your word.

I pray people would see the greatness of it.

And I just love the way it's shown through Abraham and Melchizedek's meeting there.

And man couldn't have written this and put this together

and established centuries or millenniums earlier.

The Christ would be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

And so we thank you for that.

For the Melchizedekian priesthood that is superior to the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood.

We can embrace Christ as a king from the line of the tribe of Judah.

And also be our Melchizedekian priest, Lord.

And I pray for an understanding why we're on Sunday.

We didn't completely finish that today.

But people probably see where we're going.

That there's a change in the law and the Sabbath is associated with the Mosque law.

The law of Christ being associated with the first day of the week, Lord.

And so we thank you for that and the privilege of gathering on Sundays as we do.

And there was a lot that came out in this teaching.

Help it to be planted deeply in our people's hearts to take it with them.

And we ask this in Jesus' name.

Amen.

I God bless you guys, you're dismissed.