IS THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT A MORAL LAW?

The question was heartfelt—even a little desperate. The writer, a never-been-Adventist, was struggling to deal with the Sabbath arguments of a well-known Adventist theologian and writer who happened to be a close family member. Even by email the question signaled a level of desperation for an answer that made sense.

Here is part of the letter:

"So, if I understand correctly, when an Adventist asks you why your life looks like you have a respect for only 9 of the 10 commandments, one way you could respond would be to say that the fourth commandment was the only one that wasn’t a moral law?

I’m not intending to debate. I’m just trying to develop my best defense. Does the position that the 10 commandments were “nailed to the cross” and the “fourth is not moral” struggle with Hebrews chapter 4? The author seems to make sure and connect the concept of rest to the fourth commandment in vs. 4 and 9. Then, in verse 10, he connects it to what God did at creation which seems to me to indicate that there’s a moral component to this. This chapter in Hebrews is why I’ve felt like I needed to maintain that the 4th commandment is indeed moral, but since the rest that “Joshua had given them” was clearly inadequate, there is a new rest found in Christ. Therefore, I “keep” the fourth when I have faith in Christ’s recreation work in me. With this line of thought, I’d argue that the Adventists ironically have an incredibly low view of the Sabbath as they “only” rest one day out of the week, and my entire life is consumed with rest."

The writer continued by identifying the Adventist with whom he is in conversations, and when I read the name, I suddenly understood the confusing, disorienting nature of the writer’s interactions. Being familiar with the Adventist’s arguments that change the meanings of Scripture’s context, I knew the person contacting us needed details.

Further, I realized that the email writer is not unique. We who have been Adventists need to know how to answer this question with its related references to Hebrews 4: is the Sabbath commandment a moral law, or is it ceremonial? What is a Sabbath rest for the people of God today?

Here is my answer to him.

Good Question

Your question about the fourth commandment is a good one. Technically, the fourth commandment is not “moral” in the eternal, righteousness-of-God sense of morality. The Sabbath is part of the ritual laws of Israel, and in Leviticus 23, where Moses listed and explained all the sacred sabbaths for Israel, the seventh day is the first sabbath listed and explained. The seventh-day Sabbath was a ritual law just as were the sabbaths of Pentecost, Passover, New Moon, and so forth. According to Colossians 2:16, 17, Jesus fulfilled the sabbaths, including the seventh day, with HIMSELF. He is the reality toward which the shadows pointed.

I had to understand the nature of the law before I could understand that the Sabbath was a ritual requirement.

As a former Adventist, however, who had a fixed view of the Decalogue as eternal and authoritative for all time, the argument that the Sabbath was merely “ritual” and not “moral”, although technically correct, I found almost not worthy of discussion. The fact that it was placed in the Ten was the “proof” it was moral. I had to understand the nature of the law before I could understand that the Sabbath was a ritual requirement. This understanding came as I learned that the Bible itself identifies the Ten as the actual “words of the covenant” (Ex. 34:27, 28), and the law was an indivisible unit that included the abstract, if you will, written in the Ten Words, and the rest of the law was explained the Ten.

Law Built On Levitical Priesthood

Hebrews 7 helped me see that the OT law could not exist without the foundation of the Levitical priesthood. Hebrews 7:11 states overtly,

Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need [was there] for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? (Heb 7:11).

Until I actually memorized Hebrews 7 a few years ago, the impact of that passage had never dawned on me. The law was given on the basis of the Levitical priesthood. Without the levitical priesthood, there is no law—and the entire existence of the levitical priesthood was ritual! They carried out all of the sacrifices and ceremonies demanded by the law, and infractions against the Ten were dealt with by the priesthood. In fact, they performed or administered all the laws and consequences for moral infractions done by the Israelites. They had to offer the blood sacrifices and perform the oversight over diseases and lead the nation in worship and thanksgiving and administer justice.

Hebrews 7 explains carefully that, if there is a change in the priesthood, there must, of necessity, be a change of the law. Read it in Hebrews 7:12:

For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also (Heb 7:11-12).

Adventists NEVER deal with this passage contextually.

The law, as R.K. McGregor Wright’s article explains in detail, is a UNIT and cannot be dissected into categories, some eternal and some temporal. In fact, James 2:10 says that if a person stumbles even over one point of the law, he breaks the WHOLE law. That whole law does not refer to the Ten alone; Adventists insist the Ten are a separate document, that the law of Moses was written by Moses, but the Ten were written by God. This argument, however, is untrue. The Bible never separates the individual laws into categories and then further separates them from each other. It never says that part of the law is eternal, and part is temporary.

Galatians 3:17–21 clarifies that the law had a beginning—430 years after Moses—and an ending: when the Seed came.

On the contrary, Galatians 3:17–21 clarifies that the law had a beginning—430 years after Moses—and an ending: when the Seed came. Furthermore, we can see from the words of the gospel of Luke that the ritual law and the Law of God are not separate things. In Luke 2:22, in speaking about Joseph and Mary and the infant Jesus, Luke says this:

And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (Luke 2:22).

So far, so good—according to the Adventist argument. The ritual purification required after childbirth was part of the “law of Moses”; Adventists would say this requirement was part of the ceremonial, or ritual, law—part of the law that Moses wrote out, not that God wrote.

But then Luke gets “confusing” from an Adventist perspective; he says this in verses 23-24:

(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “EVERY [firstborn] MALE THAT OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO THE LORD”), and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS” (Luke 2:23-24).

Adventists understand that the laws of first fruits and all the sacrificial laws were merely “ceremonial”, part of the “law of Moses” and not eternal as they suppose the Ten Commandments to be. Yet right there the Bible says the law of first fruits and the law of sacrifices which dictated that a poor person could offer doves instead of lambs or rams—both of which are CEREMONIAL or RITUAL laws—are in the Law of the Lord!

The Ten and all the rest of the law which explained the administration of the Ten were one law.

I have never heard an Adventist address this detail—yet I find it incredibly clear. The entire law was indivisible. The Ten and all the rest of the law which explained the administration of the Ten were one law. That one law entirely rested on the authority of the levitical priesthood who carried out the terms of the covenant before God as mediators for the nation.

The core of the Law was a death sentence: if you break one detail of this law, you will die, and blood sacrifices were the only provision for the Israelites. Only blood could atone for breaking a law—and those animal sacrifices were not permanent.

So how DO we deal with the idea that, if the Ten are part of the whole law and Jesus fulfilled it, its requirements are listed in the New Testament? And if the Ten are Moral, how do we deal with the Sabbath?

Finding Answers

Here’s what I have come to understand as I have studied the New Testament. While we can look at the law and separate out those that are strictly rituals for Israel while others (like the NINE) are still moral requirements, yet the collection of all of the 613 laws (which incudes the Ten Commandments) of the Mosaic Law was moral for Israel. For the nation to whom the law was given, every single command was MORAL.

God demanded that each of those laws be kept. In fact, the sacrifices (the ones which Adventists most readily see as “ritual”) were at the heart of God’s moral requirements for Israel: without the shedding of blood there was no remission of sins! The Israelites remained in sin if they did not offer sacrifices and keep the sabbaths of the Lord. God demanded these things of them. In fact, Judah was exiled into Babylon for 70 years partly because it had failed to keep its Jubilee sabbaths for the land. The 70 years were for all the land-sabbaths that the nation had failed to observe.

The seventh day WAS truly ritual, but because it was the sign of the covenant and a demand of God, it was, for Israel, MORAL

So, the argument of “moral” and “ceremonial” is almost a moot point for an Adventist—and even, frankly, for me. The seventh day WAS truly ritual, but because it was the sign of the covenant and a demand of God, it was, for Israel, MORAL.

Hebrews 10:1 says that the law (meaning the whole law, not the Ten) was a shadow of the good things to come. When Jesus came, He fulfilled every single expectation the law demanded from Israel. I’ll talk through it from my perspective of having been Adventist and now seeing what He actually did.

Jesus: The Perfect Israel

He was the Perfect Israel, the spotless Lamb of God. He personally, in His flesh, fulfilled the whole law—including its demand that the one who sinned would die. He “became sin” for us (2 Cor. 5:21) so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. That means that He took our IMPUTED sin into Himself, and as the Logos (as stated in John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word”), he was the living Torah. (See again the article I linked above to “the Unity of the Law” by R.K. McGregor Wright.)

“Logos” is the Greek term for the meaning of the Hebrew word “Torah”. Jesus was the living Word of God. Into Himself He took our sin. He took our punishment physically on the cross, shedding human blood for human sin. He suffered the wrath of God as He hung on the cross, as the sun went dark, as the earth quaked. Jesus experienced the separation from the Father that is the eternal consequence of our sin. He died our death and was buried. But because His sacrifice was sinless and eternal—because He was also God the Son and could therefore bear the responsibility for the sin of His creation and offer a sufficient propitiation to satisfy God’s demands for sin, He rose from death on the third day according to Scripture. He had paid the sufficient price to shatter the death sentence!

All of the Mosaic law—including the Ten which contained the sign of that covenant—was completed and fulfilled, like a will is fulfilled when a person dies, and the benefits are distributed.

All of the Mosaic law—including the Ten which contained the sign of that covenant—was completed and fulfilled, like a will is fulfilled when a person dies and the benefits are distributed. (See Galatians 3 and Romans 7.) The terms of the entire Mosaic covenant were fulfilled in Jesus’s perfect, sinless blood, and the sentence of death to sinners was broken. When a person trusts Jesus alone and His finished work, he is no longer under the death sentence.

What About Us?

So, what about this side of the cross? Paul couldn’t be more clear: if anyone goes back to the law after trusting Jesus, he falls from grace (Gal. 5). Paul feared for the Galatians that he had preached to them in vain because they were again keeping days (Gal. 4:8–11). The law given on Mt Sinai (and the Ten are clearly included since they were the commands written by God on stone!) is a covenant of death (2 Cor. 3; Gal 4:21–31), and on this side of the cross, the Law (which we have to see includes the Ten) represents SLAVERY now!

In the Old Testament the law foreshadowed the good things to come in Jesus; now it represents Hagar, of all things! Paul even made the point that the covenant of Sinai declares everyone who keeps the law to be a child of Hagar. That person is in slavery.

But we have come to a different mountain: the heavenly Jerusalem, and Sarah—the mother of the Promised Son-–is our mother if we are in Christ. We are not to take any part of the law for ourselves. All of it—including the moral commands, were fulfilled in Christ.

So what about our morality?

When we are in Christ, we are literally imputed with His personal righteousness. In fact, Romans 3:21, 22 tells us:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction (Rom 3:21-22).

The law and the prophets were merely WITNESSES of God’s own personal righteousness which is imputed to us through faith in Jesus. This means that even the commands to honor God only, to NOT kill or commit adultery or steal or covet—all the laws were fulfilled for us in Christ. When we trust Christ, we are credited with His personal righteousness, and we receive the reality of the Sabbath: the new birth, peace with God, reconciliation, new life in Him.

Our justification is dependent ONLY upon belief. In fact, Jesus said that when we believe, we pass from death to life (Jn. 5:24). Belief is the only requirement for justification before God. Once we believe, our sanctification is the area where God works in us. Adventists see sanctification as necessary for salvation; they do not see justification as the point at which we are saved; they say sanctification is also required. But sanctification is the work God does in the life of a born-again believer, and all the commands of the New Testament are written to BELIEVERS.

We are now under a new law, not the law given on Sinai.

We are now under a new law, not the law given on Sinai. We are alive with Jesus’ life, justified by His personal righteousness and not by our obedience. The Author of the Law indwells us and teaches us to apply Scripture to our lives.

What Is the Sabbath Rest in Hebrews?

Hebrews 4 is not teaching a Sabbath day; it explains in detail that God set a different day because the seventh day brought no one rest. The new day is called TODAY. Furthermore Hebrews 4:9 is not talking about observing a day. The Greek underlying the “sabbath rest for the people of God” is unique in the New Testament: sabbatismos. No other place is this word used. It means “a sabbath-like rest”, or “sabbathing”. It means the rest that comes from believing TODAY. It is not speaking of a day in any sense. It is referring to the new covenant fulfillment of the seventh-day sabbath: the “sabbath-like rest” that remains for a specific group of people: “the people of God”.

Who, in context, are the people of God? Those who have believed. Those who have trusted the finished work of Jesus as the complete atonement for their sins; those who have been born again and who have passed from death to life. THEY have that sabbath-like rest: the literal life of God in them. These are the ones who have passed from death to life (not a future hope but a present reality) as Jesus said in John 5:24.

Epilogue

The day after I sent the above explanation to our correspondent, I received another email from him. His relief was palpable, and as a former Adventist, I resonated with the clarity he finally had:

You helped a bunch with pointing out the word for Sabbath in Hebrews 4 is sabbatismos. It’s a shame that our modern translations don’t pick up on this! I’ve really wrestled with that text over the years, and this helps a lot.

When we trust Him and His finished work of atonement for sin, we enter His rest.

The fourth commandment was fulfilled in Jesus. When we trust Him and His finished work of atonement for sin, we enter His rest. That is the point of Hebrews 4: if we hear His voice Today—Believe! Jesus Himself is our rest. The “place holder” of a Sabbath day is fulfilled in Jesus, and when we are born again and ushered into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, we inherit His righteousness and are reconciled to God.

We cease our work to justify ourselves in His sight, and we rest in His finished work.

Paul tells us in Romans 14 that now, in the new covenant, the matter of observing a day is a matter of personal conscience—but it is not a matter of command. There is no new covenant instruction for keeping a day. In fact, when Christians meet together on Sunday, that assembly does not mean the day is sacred.

Sabbath was always a shadow pointing to the Lord Jesus, and when we know Him, we have Sabbath rest—we have Sabbatismos.

Source: Is the Fourth Commandment a Moral Law? – Proclamation! Online Magazine | Former Adventist Fellowship (lifeassuranceministries.org): 
https://blog.lifeassuranceministries.org/2024/02/01/is-the-fourth-commandment-a-moral-law/