Some of the recent commentary surrounding posts here and at Banned by HWA regarding the Old and New Covenants got me thinking about the divergent views that different groups and individuals hold about them. I was reminded about Herbert Armstrong's views on the subject, and the way that he criticized more traditional Christian views of the covenants. In particular, I was reminded of the conclusion which I arrived at some years back now that Armstrong's understanding of the two covenants was weak, superficial/shallow and just plain wrong!
The Old Covenant was based on the Israelites' obedience to certain laws, statutes and ordinances contained in the Torah. Herbert Armstrong believed that the obligation to obey SOME of those laws, statutes and ordinances carried over into the New Covenant. In particular, he believed that only the sacrificial elements, along with some of the rituals that were peculiar to the Levitical priesthood, had been eliminated from the New Covenant. According to Armstrong, in addition to God's fundamental law (Ten Commandments), things like tithing, festival attendance and dietary laws were incorporated into the New Covenant. His primary proof of this conclusion was founded on the fact that Christ, his apostles and the Jerusalem church had clearly observed these elements (citing several texts within the New Testament of the Bible).
Armstrong, however, had failed to appreciate the fact that Christ had to observe all of God's various laws, statutes and ordinances in order to qualify as the innocent lamb (without spot or blemish) which was to be sacrificed to pay the penalty for the rest of us who have transgressed those laws. Mr. Armstrong liked to remind his followers that Christ didn't come to destroy the law or make the prophets obsolete. Even so, HWA apparently could not comprehend what it meant for Christ to fulfill those things. It wasn't that Christ had abolished/annihilated/done away with the law. He had simply filled them all to the full - had perfectly kept them, because we couldn't!
Under the terms of the Old Covenant, there had been various burnt offerings, sin offerings, peace offerings, trespass offerings, etc. These offerings were commonly made by spilling the blood of some animal (killing it) and presenting this to God to atone for whatever infraction(s) of the law that the offender had committed.
According to Jesus Christ, however, the New Covenant was established in HIS blood! (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20 and I Corinthians 11:25). In other words, the forgiveness of our trespasses against the law is founded in the blood that Jesus Christ shed for us!
Notice how this agrees with what the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has to say about the two covenants. After discussing the terms/conditions of the Old Covenant, in the ninth chapter of that book, we read: "So Christ has now become the High Priest over all the good things that have come. He has entered that greater, more perfect Tabernacle in heaven, which was not made by human hands and is not part of this created world. With his own blood—not the blood of goats and calves—he entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever. Under the old system, the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer could cleanse people’s bodies from ceremonial impurity. Just think how much more the blood of Christ will purify our consciences from sinful deeds so that we can worship the living God. For by the power of the eternal Spirit, Christ offered himself to God as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. That is why he is the one who mediates a new covenant between God and people, so that all who are called can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant." (verses 11-15)
Continuing there, we read: "That is why even the first covenant was put into effect with the blood of an animal. For after Moses had read each of God’s commandments to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, along with water, and sprinkled both the book of God’s law and all the people, using hyssop branches and scarlet wool. Then he said, 'This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you.' And in the same way, he sprinkled blood on the Tabernacle and on everything used for worship. In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness. That is why the Tabernacle and everything in it, which were copies of things in heaven, had to be purified by the blood of animals. But the real things in heaven had to be purified with far better sacrifices than the blood of animals. For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with human hands, which was only a copy of the true one in heaven. He entered into heaven itself to appear now before God on our behalf. And he did not enter heaven to offer himself again and again, like the high priest here on earth who enters the Most Holy Place year after year with the blood of an animal. If that had been necessary, Christ would have had to die again and again, ever since the world began. But now, once for all time, he has appeared at the end of the age to remove sin by his own death as a sacrifice." (verses 18-26)
The author of Hebrews continued contrasting the two covenants in the following chapter. We read: "The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come, not the good things themselves. The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship. If they could have provided perfect cleansing, the sacrifices would have stopped, for the worshipers would have been purified once for all time, and their feelings of guilt would have disappeared." (Hebrews 10:1-2) Then the author summarizes the points just made: "First, Christ said, 'You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings or burnt offerings or other offerings for sin, nor were you pleased with them' (though they are required by the law of Moses). Then he said, 'Look, I have come to do your will.' He cancels the first covenant in order to put the second into effect. For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time. Under the old covenant, the priest stands and ministers before the altar day after day, offering the same sacrifices again and again, which can never take away sins. But our High Priest offered himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time." (verses 8-12)
The author of Hebrews concluded his/her thought with a reference to the testimony of the Holy Spirit. We read: "This is the new covenant I will make with my people on that day, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." (verse 16) This statement is consistent with what the New Covenant in Christ's blood accomplishes for us.
Christ summarized the Ten Commandments into two great principles: "‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37) This is the law that Christ incorporated into the New Covenant - this is the law that lives on in the hearts of the participants in the New Covenant.
The Old Covenant was based on the Israelites' obedience to certain laws, statutes and ordinances contained in the Torah. Herbert Armstrong believed that the obligation to obey SOME of those laws, statutes and ordinances carried over into the New Covenant. In particular, he believed that only the sacrificial elements, along with some of the rituals that were peculiar to the Levitical priesthood, had been eliminated from the New Covenant. According to Armstrong, in addition to God's fundamental law (Ten Commandments), things like tithing, festival attendance and dietary laws were incorporated into the New Covenant. His primary proof of this conclusion was founded on the fact that Christ, his apostles and the Jerusalem church had clearly observed these elements (citing several texts within the New Testament of the Bible).
Armstrong, however, had failed to appreciate the fact that Christ had to observe all of God's various laws, statutes and ordinances in order to qualify as the innocent lamb (without spot or blemish) which was to be sacrificed to pay the penalty for the rest of us who have transgressed those laws. Mr. Armstrong liked to remind his followers that Christ didn't come to destroy the law or make the prophets obsolete. Even so, HWA apparently could not comprehend what it meant for Christ to fulfill those things. It wasn't that Christ had abolished/annihilated/done away with the law. He had simply filled them all to the full - had perfectly kept them, because we couldn't!
Under the terms of the Old Covenant, there had been various burnt offerings, sin offerings, peace offerings, trespass offerings, etc. These offerings were commonly made by spilling the blood of some animal (killing it) and presenting this to God to atone for whatever infraction(s) of the law that the offender had committed.
According to Jesus Christ, however, the New Covenant was established in HIS blood! (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20 and I Corinthians 11:25). In other words, the forgiveness of our trespasses against the law is founded in the blood that Jesus Christ shed for us!
Notice how this agrees with what the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has to say about the two covenants. After discussing the terms/conditions of the Old Covenant, in the ninth chapter of that book, we read: "So Christ has now become the High Priest over all the good things that have come. He has entered that greater, more perfect Tabernacle in heaven, which was not made by human hands and is not part of this created world. With his own blood—not the blood of goats and calves—he entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever. Under the old system, the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer could cleanse people’s bodies from ceremonial impurity. Just think how much more the blood of Christ will purify our consciences from sinful deeds so that we can worship the living God. For by the power of the eternal Spirit, Christ offered himself to God as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. That is why he is the one who mediates a new covenant between God and people, so that all who are called can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant." (verses 11-15)
Continuing there, we read: "That is why even the first covenant was put into effect with the blood of an animal. For after Moses had read each of God’s commandments to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, along with water, and sprinkled both the book of God’s law and all the people, using hyssop branches and scarlet wool. Then he said, 'This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you.' And in the same way, he sprinkled blood on the Tabernacle and on everything used for worship. In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness. That is why the Tabernacle and everything in it, which were copies of things in heaven, had to be purified by the blood of animals. But the real things in heaven had to be purified with far better sacrifices than the blood of animals. For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with human hands, which was only a copy of the true one in heaven. He entered into heaven itself to appear now before God on our behalf. And he did not enter heaven to offer himself again and again, like the high priest here on earth who enters the Most Holy Place year after year with the blood of an animal. If that had been necessary, Christ would have had to die again and again, ever since the world began. But now, once for all time, he has appeared at the end of the age to remove sin by his own death as a sacrifice." (verses 18-26)
The author of Hebrews continued contrasting the two covenants in the following chapter. We read: "The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come, not the good things themselves. The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship. If they could have provided perfect cleansing, the sacrifices would have stopped, for the worshipers would have been purified once for all time, and their feelings of guilt would have disappeared." (Hebrews 10:1-2) Then the author summarizes the points just made: "First, Christ said, 'You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings or burnt offerings or other offerings for sin, nor were you pleased with them' (though they are required by the law of Moses). Then he said, 'Look, I have come to do your will.' He cancels the first covenant in order to put the second into effect. For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time. Under the old covenant, the priest stands and ministers before the altar day after day, offering the same sacrifices again and again, which can never take away sins. But our High Priest offered himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time." (verses 8-12)
The author of Hebrews concluded his/her thought with a reference to the testimony of the Holy Spirit. We read: "This is the new covenant I will make with my people on that day, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." (verse 16) This statement is consistent with what the New Covenant in Christ's blood accomplishes for us.
Christ summarized the Ten Commandments into two great principles: "‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37) This is the law that Christ incorporated into the New Covenant - this is the law that lives on in the hearts of the participants in the New Covenant.
The above post was not meant to suggest that the Old and New Covenants are the only Divine Covenants revealed in Scripture - just that they were the principal two. There was the Rainbow Covenant with Noah - where God promised to never annihilate the life on earth again. There was the Abraham Covenant, the terms of which were reinterpreted and extended by Christ to include his own followers. And there was the Davidic Covenant that found its ultimate fulfillment in the person of Christ. Interesting to ponder the overlapping nature of all of the Divine Covenants, and how they all continue to have meaning and relevance to any serious discussion of the Judeo-Christian Bible.
ReplyDeleteIf the New Covenant requires law keeping then the first time anyone breaks that law they've broken the covenant. The purpose of the New Covenant was to forgive law breaking, not to give different laws. God gave laws at creation, if he didn't then no one but Israelites would ever be guilty of sin. Where there is no law there is no transgression.
ReplyDeleteSorry Miller but you still don't understand the covenants.
Whether or not you or I understand the covenants has absolutely no impact on God's end of the equation - understanding does NOT equal salvation or make one a Christian. God is able and willing to fulfill them both and make sure that "His" law is written on our hearts. As I tried to state in the post, I don't believe that the requirements of the Old were transferred to the New, and I also don't believe that Christ did away with the law. In other words, I believe both views are very flawed!
DeleteMiller, why was the law given? It was given because of transgressions according to Gal. 3. Paul said where there is no law there is no transgression, so obviously before the old covenant there was law. If the law was given because of transgressions then why would God add any law that hadn't been transgressed? All the laws that we can find in the old covenant were in existence before Mt. Sinai except for a few exceptions. The sacrificial laws were given so that they could be forgiven for breaking the law. They are one set of exceptions. The others are laws showing that Israel was special such as mixing fabric and seed. The Sabbath was made for man, so that law logically existed before Sinai. Just because we have no written records of this is of no consequence. We don't have records of anything from four or five thousand years ago if it wasn't written on stone. Plus, I don't remember saying that you had to understand the covenants to be saved. But you should understand them if you're going to teach them. Part of our historical problem is that most of our "teachers" don't understand either, including your dad or Bill W.
DeleteAlso, I don't think HWA really understood the covenants but I do know that he never taught that the "requirements of the Old were transferred to the New,". Whoever taught you that is confused.
DeleteWe may be closer in our understanding of this than you think. I never said that God added laws - I said that Christ summarized/transformed them (and I agree that many of the laws which were made a part of the Old Covenant were in existence long before they were included in the Torah).
DeleteMy objective was to get away from the old law vs grace arguments that have been raging for two thousand years. And, it is my humble opinion, that anyone who seeks to understand/explain these covenants, would be better served by studying them from a perspective other than the Apostle Paul's writings (after all, it was said back in the day that he had written some things that were hard to understand). Evidence that another perspective (like the one outlined in Hebrews quoted above) might be more enlightening? Look at how many treatises have been written on the book of Galatians that reach conclusions at polar opposites with each other. In other words, how many folks do you think that we're going to be able to educate by quoting Paul?
We probably are closer than most. I mainly wanted to point out one thing and that's that while the old covenant required law keeping by Israel, the New Covenant in Jesus' blood does not require law keeping, it requires repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. That's it. Its sole purpose is to forgive law breaking, which God as our creator does demand. So many can't come to grips with this simple fact. Even many Sabbath keepers are unable to comprehend that the New Covenant doesn't require law keeping, God is the one that requires that, the New Covenant was made solely for our forgiveness.
DeleteKevin McMillen
Lonnie, I actually think that we can educate people by quoting Paul, but only people who are willing to learn. Too many today, in this internet age, think they know it all and they don't need taught.
ReplyDeleteI've pointed Col. 2 out many times but most people refuse to listen to the logic behind it. Who was it who were judging the Colossians in Col. 2:16,17? Most think it was the Judaizers from Acts 15, but they neglect to understand that Jews believed the Sabbath and feasts were theirs and no one elses. In order to keep them one had to be circumcised. That's why in Acts 15 they were demanding circumcision first and then law keeping.
So, in Col. 2, I believe verse 13 states that the Colossians were uncircumcised, which means that no Jew worth his salt would ever judge an uncircumcised gentile for not keeping the Sabbath or feasts.
So who was it who were judging the Colossians and why were they being judged? Other gentiles wouldn't judge them for "not" keeping Sabbath and feasts. Jews wouldn't judge uncircumcised gentiles for not keeping the Sabbath and feasts.
The only logical explanation is that the Colossians were being judged because they were indeed keeping the Sabbath and feasts. Other gentiles were judging them for keeping "Jewish" days and Jews were judging them for keeping their days without being circumcised.
No one has been able to contradict the logic in this conclusion of mine. If anyone can I'd welcome it.
Kevin McMillen
Kevin,
DeleteHWA did say a few things that made sense - I liked it when he quoted the old proverb "One convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Where Paul's writings are concerned, I'm not sure that there is much open-mindedness available out there - that is why I attacked the subject from the perspective of the author of Hebrews.
You may be right about Colossians 2, but I think that the principal point that Paul was making is that you can be a Christian and keep or not keep the festivals (there is clear evidence that both attitudes were extant in the First Century church). Thanks for sharing your perspective - I believe these kinds of conversations can help to clarify views (even when folks don't reach the same conclusions).
Lonnie, I just wanted to let you know that this comment on banned about playing games was not from me.
ReplyDelete******
Anonymous said...
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Miller, the only reason for the old covenant per Paul in Gal. 3 was to tutor the children of Abraham until the Seed, the one who brings the New Covenant, came.
What was the reason for the New Covenant? Was it to give a new and better system of laws? Not according to Jesus. He said the New Covenant was for the remission of sins.
If there were no sins there'd be no need for the New Covenant. If there were no law there'd be no sin. Again that is according to Paul.
Rom 4:15 - Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
The very idea that the New Covenant in Jesus' blood requires any kind of law keeping is just ridiculous. It's sole purpose is to forgive law breaking.
November 4, 2019 at 1:17 PM
You simply have no idea what you are talking about. It's obvious by your post.
Obviously you do not understand the OC, and you clearly have no idea what the NC is.
But thanks for playing along!
November 4, 2019 at 3:58 PM
******
The first part, which was addressed to you was from me, down to the date and time stamp.
The rest, from the first date and time stamp until the last date and time stamp was probably from BB or Gary Leonard because these are the kinds of games they play on that blog.
Kevin
Thanks Kevin,
DeleteI regret taking the bait on that one and posting a snide remark (ego in operation).
Not guilty, Kevin. I didn't write that. In fact, I haven't been blogging much over the past several weeks because I've been working on my old Shovelhead, and writing a novel.
DeleteAlso, I'm kind of burned out on the same discussions over and over and over, even though there is a new cast of characters. All this stuff, I've resolved and put to bed years ago, and am about as likely to change my mind as I would be to stop using Hellmans Mayonnaise, or to start riding Hondas.
BB
BB, then I apologize for thinking you were in on the games over at banned.
DeleteKevin
By the way Byker, you should try Kraft Mayo. ;-)
DeleteKevin
No problem Lonnie. I just wanted to let you know. I'm getting tired of the games BB, Gary and others play over there. I guess my problem is that I'm a straight shooter, what you see of me is what you get. I hate people who put up a fake front. A naive West Virginian I guess.
ReplyDeleteKevin
By the way, I explained this on banned but Gary didn't post it.
ReplyDeleteKevin
Sorry it has taken me so long to post and respond (I've been sick). Personally, I have never had any problems with Byker Bob and Gary. In my experience, they have always posted thoughtful and thought provoking comments and have been willing to engage with those who disagree with them in a respectful manner.
DeleteThis blog will publish comments by everyone who shares their views in a respectful manner - even when they vociferously disagree with me. My objective is to provoke thought, not convert others to my way of looking at things. I appreciate you and everyone else who chooses to stop by and share their views here - our comments may be helpful/useful to others in reaching their own conclusions about the topics we tackle.
Here's something that I wrote about God's law that at first blush many Sabbath keepers will most likely refuse to accept. But I'm hoping that as they think on this they'll come to understand what I'm saying. If a covenant is an agreement between two or more parties, and if a covenant has certain stipulations, the very first time that just one of those stipulations is broken the covenant can be called null and void.
ReplyDeleteGod's law from the garden has nothing to do with covenants. We're expected to obey God because he's our creator, not because of some deal, or covenant that we've made. The New Covenant in Jesus' blood only purpose (that's a grand purpose) is to forgive our sins, forgive our disobedience to God. The only requirements are true heartfelt repentance that only God can recognize and true faith in Christ, again only God can recognize.
If the New Covenant had any other requirements then the very first time we break just one, the covenant has been broken. Which is also why the bible says that to break one of the laws of the old covenant is as breaking them all. One sin, one time breaking the rules of the agreement makes the covenant null and void.
God requires law keeping, the New Covenant does not!
cont.
part 2
ReplyDeleteSomething that I wrote a while back:
Why I Keep God's Sabbaths
The heart to obey is what God desires (Deut. 30:2, Deut. 5:29) and the blood of Jesus Christ is the only means for the remission/redemption of sin, not law keeping.
I personally have been a Sabbath and Feast (moedim) day keeper for over 50 years. I believe there is much misunderstanding about keeping the Sabbath, even among Sabbath keepers. I have tried to remedy that among Sabbath keepers as best that I can but way too many are Old Covenant legalists, though they’d vehemently deny it. I can assure you that I’m not.
Way too many Sabbath teachers teach that we are to keep the Sabbath because God commands it in the fourth commandment. Their problem is that the Bible clearly says that the Ten Commandments are the words of the Covenant, the Old Mt. Sinai Covenant is the context of that verse (Ex. 34:28). To claim to keep the Sabbath because the fourth commandment commands it is placing oneself under that Covenant which ended at Jesus’ death according to Gal. 3:19.
Now you’re probably thinking “If you understand that, then why do you keep the seventh day Sabbath?”. Easy, Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man (the Greek word for man is anthropos), meaning all of mankind. The Sabbath wasn’t made at Sinai; it was made and sanctified in the garden of Eden. It will also be kept by all flesh in the millennium according to Is. 66:23.
Now the question is, “Is the Sabbath a command "required" under the New Covenant in Jesus’ blood?” Luke 22:20, the answer is no. However, the New Covenant doesn’t command against murder, stealing, lying etc. either. If the New Covenant “required” obedience to these things then the first time that we break any of them would mean that we’ve broken the covenant.
Don’t get me wrong, as Christians we are to obey God’s/Jesus’ commandments but we’re not to keep them because they’re “required” by any Covenant; we’re to obey them because they’re “required” by our Creator, God/YHWH. They’ve been required by God from creation and to not obey is sin. It is a sin to break any of God’s laws. The New Covenant, as a “requirement”, doesn’t command any law, because its sole purpose is to remove the penalty of breaking the law. The law demands our death, both Jew and Gentile, for we have all sinned or broken God’s law. Sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). Jesus died to redeem us from death which the law demands when broken. The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).
cont.
part 3
ReplyDeleteThe erroneous idea that God had one set of laws for the Jews and another set of laws for the Gentiles is not Biblical and it’s caused nothing but confusion. God has one set of laws which he gave at creation. How else did Abraham know God’s laws, statutes, commands, etc? (see Gen. 26:5)
It is only logical that at creation God gave Adam and Eve laws and commands to obey, and that they taught their kids, and their kids taught theirs, but eventually over time they forgot or just refused to obey. While this is nowhere stated in the Bible it would be irresponsible of God to condemn mankind without telling him why. The fact that there’s no evidence of this proves nothing; we have no records from creation other than what Moses wrote 2,500 years later. Do we really know that Adam and the people prior to the flood had no writings? No. The laws of God were remembered, at least in part, (probably because Adam wrote them down) by Abraham’s parents and they taught him. Because of his obedience God made a covenant of Promise with him that Jesus would come from his seed. After Abraham’s initial obedience, God, as a condition of that Promise covenant, didn’t “require” continual obedience from Abraham’s kids. God would fulfill the Promise no matter what, solely because of Abraham’s faithful obedience. However, obedience was required for the simple fact that God was their Creator. As he is ours.
However, 430 years later, because disobedience/law and commandment breaking (transgression) got so bad, (Gal. 3:19) God made a separate covenant with Israel. It had to be separate because God couldn’t add to the original covenant because it was already ratified years earlier (Gal. 3:17). This second covenant was only to last until the Seed should come (Gal. 3:19).
God gave Israel his laws, statutes, judgements etc. at Mt. Sinai and also made a way to be physically forgiven if they sinned (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35). The priesthood and sacrificial system was this physical system. Those sacrifices did not forgive Israel completely, they pointed to Jesus.
The question though is, why would God add laws that weren’t being transgressed if that was the main purpose of the Mt. Sinai covenant according to Paul in Galatians 3:19? (added because of transgressions)
Obviously the Sabbath was a law of God long before Sinai and as I’ve shown will continue to be a law for all flesh during the millennium (Is. 66:23).
The problem now is the misunderstanding/confusion that most have about the New Testament scriptures. Most have been taught that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday because of a mistranslation. Where the bible says “First day of the week” the Greek says, transliterated mia ton sabbaton translated precisely as “First the sabbaths”. Proper exegesis is needed to understand this phrase.
cont.
part 4
ReplyDeleteOne must understand that Jesus died on Passover, the 14th day of the first biblical month, (Ex. 12:1-6, Lev. 23:5) next one must understand that seven Sabbaths were to be counted (Lev. 23:10-16) from the morrow after the Sabbath during the days of “unleavened bread” (while the Bible doesn’t say this, Jesus’ resurrection during the days of unleavened bread is our example), which most in error call the entire eight-day feast Passover. This was the count to Pentecost. The correct understanding of mia ton sabbaton is the “first day of the weeks” (plural) which is also the first day which started the 50 day count to Pentecost. First day of the weeks or sabbaths because seven sabbaths/weeks were to be counted from that day.
The “first day of the week” or more accurately “first day of the Sabbaths” is not the biblical name for every Sunday of the year; it’s the Biblical name for one "Sunday" (morrow after the Sabbath) a year. The day the wave sheaf was to be offered (Lev. 23:11). This wave sheaf pictured Jesus as the first of the firstfruits (1Cor. 23, James 1:18, Rev. 14:4). That was the day that Jesus was resurrected (at sunset beginning that day) and it had been celebrated by Israel for 1500 years before Jesus came to earth.
There is absolutely no biblical reason to keep Sunday, the day that Jesus was resurrected had been a special day of God’s from at least Lev. 23 (truthfully God’s feasts, Hebrew word moedim, are first mentioned in Gen. 1:14). Should we keep this day yearly? Sure. Weekly? No.
We are to keep the seventh day-Sabbath. Not because of the Old Covenant or the fourth commandment; we’re to keep it because it was made at creation for mankind. Jesus said so. He also said that He’s the Lord of the Sabbath, making the seventh day Sabbath the Lord’s Day, not Sunday.
We don’t obey God to be saved as we all have earned death. Thankfully Jesus has given the only way to be forgiven, which is His shed blood. Do we now go out and sin because we’re under grace? Sabbath breaking is still a sin and not because the fourth commandment says so. It’s a sin because God, at creation, set that day aside (sanctified, made holy) by ceasing and made that day for us, mankind. (Jesus said so!) Yes, it pictures our rest in Jesus as it has for almost 6,000 years. That rest won’t completely take place until he returns to establish his reign in the millennium, the 1,000 years that the seventh day Sabbath pictures (Col. 2:16-17). This is why all of God’s Sabbaths are shadows of things to come. They foreshadow future events in God’s plan of salvation for all of mankind.
But most importantly, the seventh day Sabbath reveals exactly which God we worship (Ez. 20:12). The seventh-day Sabbath is a sign that the God who created all things, the God who ceased on the seventh day of creation, the same God that sanctified the seventh day also sanctifies us.
That is why I keep God’s Sabbath and Feasts! (Lev. 23:2)