In the past, we've talked about the many "back doors" which Sabbatarians create to sneak into the Old Covenant and snatch the Sabbath day along with a few other laws, leaving everything else behind. So many back doors! (For more, see the "Common Legalist Arguments" series.)
We have also talked about how God disinherited the Gentiles. When mankind rejected Him for the third time, God disinherited them. Immediately after Babel, He called Abraham to be the father of the covenant people Israel who would eventually be the means for the coming of the Messiah who was destined to heal the rejection of the Gentiles. (For more, see "Once and Future Kingdom - Part II" and the "What of the Gentiles" series.)
We have talked about how Israel was formed to be the covenant nation. The law and the prophets were given to Israel alone. If you wanted a relationship with the true God, you joined Israel. You joined Israel, you got the law. You can easily see the law was for Israel just by reading how it was written. (For more, see the "Acts 15" series and "Editing the Commandments".)
There is a very distinct difference between Jew and Gentile in the Old Testament. To Israel were given "the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises" (ROM. 9:4). Gentiles were strangers to these things (EPH. 2:12); sinners and worshippers of demons. Yet, they were destined to be redeemed by the Messiah (GEN. 12:3).
To sum up, for today's post we need to have in mind these three things:
1) Modern Gentile Sabbatarians want some of the law, so they say the law is for all, 2) but ancient Gentiles were disinherited until Messiah could redeem them and were strangers to the covenant with its laws, 3) and the law was given to the covenant people Israel to guard them until Messiah could come, so if you want the covenant law you must join Israel.
But Sabbatarianism says no, the law was for all mankind.
ERASE AND REPLACE
While writing the Acts 15 articles, these points came together and something occurred to me. All of these back doors into the Old Covenant and claims of universal laws that we've reviewed over the years are really attempts to vacate God's decision to disinherit the Gentiles. To break into the Old Covenant, shove Israel aside, and take what was given to them. Since the Gentiles were disinherited and the only way to bring them back was to send the Messiah to redeem them, claiming the covenant law secretly belonged to the world, that is the Gentiles, is also an attempt at redemption without the Redeemer.
In short, saying the law really belonged to mankind all these centuries is a denial that Gentiles were disinherited, which means they never needed a Redeemer, and is also a usurpation of what was given to Israel.
Denying Babel and erasing Israel. Consciously done with forethought and intent? No. But it is what it is all the same.
And that's a good thing? That's "obedience"?
You might be wondering how I came to those conclusions.
The now defunct Old Covenant with its terms - its laws - applied to Israel. Alone. It says this repeatedly. I'm not talking about an edited, romanticized, "the law predated Israel" version of the law. I mean the actual law as written. The law. Look through the Ten Commandments. It's even in the very description of the glorious Sabbath day itself:
(EXO. 31:13, 16-17) 13 “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. ... 16 Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.
Between God and Israel, forever; not God and everyone.
Three times in four verses it makes this clear. Sabbatarians ignore this and claim these verses say the Sabbath was for all mankind because verse 17 mentions creation. Read it carefully. It does not say the Sabbath was created on day 7. It does not say it was commanded for mankind on day 7. It says God rested on day 7. Everything else is assumed in.
As an aside, someone might wonder how else it should be understood. Verse 17 is saying that because God rested on the seventh day of creation, therefore He put Israel's Sabbath rest on the seventh day of the week. (Note, no mention of going to church.) The Sabbath draws imagery from creation. It is not saying the Sabbath was created and given to all mankind on the seventh day of creation. Genesis 2 doesn't say that either. (For more, see "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2".)
If it was an obligation for all, then how is it a special sign for Israel .. a special sign for Israel forever? Doesn't a sign require some kind of exclusivity?
If the Old Covenant with its terms - the law - applied to all mankind and not to Israel alone, then what was the point of Israel? If we say, "Look what God says to us," when we turn to Exodus or Leviticus (just for example), then what was given to Israel? If we say, "The Covenant is for everyone," then what was the Covenant with Israel for?
If the law is for people outside the covenant, then what is the point of being inside? If the Sabbath is for the stranger, then what does it mean to be part of the community? What is disinheritance if it is the same as inheritance? Paul might as well have said, "What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Meh. What's the difference?"
This Sabbatarian view looks to me like rank usurpation of Israel's place as the chosen people of the Old Covenant. Is this not a denial that the Gentiles were in fact disinherited to begin with? Is that not a countermanding of God's judgment? It vacates God's decision. What gives man the right to overrule God?
Denying Babel and erasing Israel.
VEGAS-STYLE
Sabbatarianism doesn't want the whole law from Israel, though. No. Only some laws. Herbert Armstrong claimed if circumcision were required then the whole law would be required, including the ceremonial law. And he was right! That's exactly what Paul said. Because in this context, it would mean you've joined Israel and taken on Israel's covenant responsibilities. But Armstrong' thought he'd found a loophole. His point was, if circumcision is avoided then we are free to keep some of the law without being obligated to all of it. That is what he took away from reading Acts 15.
Think about this, though.
The inescapable result of that virtual "law buffet" is that we've just undermined everything from Abraham to Jesus. How so? Because it circumvents Abraham and Israel and Jesus.
How does it circumvent Abraham and Israel?
Circumcision was the act, the sign and seal, which entered a man and his family into the Abrahamic covenant. Jew and Gentile alike. If a Gentile did these things, he joined Israel and ceased being a Gentile. If a Jew would not do these things, they were cut off from their people. Upon entering the Abrahamic Covenant, these ones were joined to the covenant people of Israel. By joining Israel they were also bound to Israel's Old Covenant obligations - all of them. The Covenant and its law is a singular, indivisible whole. Each person may not have been required to observe every last one of the 613 laws, but they were bound to it all. And the act, the sign and seal, of their participation in the Old Covenant was the Sabbath day.
Circumcision → join Israel → Old Covenant law → Sabbath day.
Herbert Armstrong said if you avoid the first sign (and thus circumvent Abraham), you are free to get Israel's signs and laws without joining them (and thus circumvent Israel). To claim what is Israel's without any right.
Erasing Israel.
Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not steal"? Excuse me if I don't agree that is what the Apostles proposed and the believing Pharisees aligned to.
How does it circumvent Jesus?
Consider this - if we can do that now, if we can circumvent Abraham and Israel to have a "law buffet" now, then we could always have done it.
Circumcision and the Sabbath were the signs of two covenants that the Gentiles were not part of. In those days, God was not their God and they were not His people. The means for Gentiles to be reclaimed was Jesus. A Gentile's choices were join Israel or wait for the Jesus. But if those Gentiles could simply sidestep Abraham and Israel to ingratiate themselves back into God's good graces on their own, then they have circumvented Jesus. This is another way of saying those Gentiles of old could un-reject themselves; undo God's judgment after Babel. No need for a Redeemer. No Messiah necessary. No Israel necessary. They simply vacate God's judgment, and all it took was avoiding circumcision.
Denying Babel.
We've just undermined everything from Abraham to Jesus. "Hi God! We know you kicked us out, but we've thought about it and we've decided we're back. Shabbat Shalom!"
Are you objecting? Then you're objecting that it can be done now as well! And I agree with you.
"But Jesus is my Redeemer," I will no doubt hear. Yes ... if you accept Him as such. Please do! But is He really? He did not redeem us into the Old Covenant but the New (GAL. 4:21-31). If He truly is your Redeemer, then what is with these many attempts to find a back door into the Old Covenant to get that shiny, candy-like law you so covet (GAL. 5:4)??
Do some not covet?
Look at how some want to usurp Israel. Look at British-Israelism/Anglo-Israelism. They defy all history and genetics so they can pretend to be Israel in order to take what is not theirs. A hundred versions of where and how it played out, and none agree. Or look at the way they call themselves the 144,000. Meaning, the 144,000 from the book of Revelation. A group who is described in exclusively Israelite terms. Or look at the way some pretend to speak Hebrew. "Jesus wasn't His name, it was [insert spelling of the month]." Yah, Yahashua, Yeshua, Yoshua, Yahua, Jehovah, etc etc etc. Changing all the time. A hundred spellings and they're all the most correct one. Arguing amongst themselves over the right way to to render the Hebrew into English, as if Hebrew is some magic spell that will grant you special power. "I say Yasheshuech rather than Jesus, and sh'abbat rather than Sabbath. God will hear me but not you!" (Jesus likely spoke Aramaic, based on certain words He used. Guess how His name would have been spelled. Not Hebrew. Most of the New Testament was written in Greek. Guess how the Apostles wrote His name. Not Hebrew.)
Is that not usurping Israel? Is that not covetousness?
The catch-22 here is, if you are Israel, then you are beholden to all of Israel's covenant responsibilities. Avoiding circumcision will not help you. The "law buffet" is closed. Can't have it both ways.
THE NEW OLD COVENANT
Someone might say to me that this 'bypass circumcision' option only became available after Jesus. Then why claim the law was always for the world? That's not after Jesus. But this 'after Jesus' claim doesn't make things better. It means A) Jesus fundamentally modified the Old Covenant rather than ending it at His death and replacing it with the New Covenant, and B) takes us right back again to the heart of what the Jerusalem Council was debating.
In the Jerusalem Council, the choices were:
A) [Pharisees] circumcision → join Israel → Old Covenant law, as it had always been, or
B) [Apostles] the Gentiles were cleansed and elect without joining Israel, and thus they were not entering into any of Israel's legal obligations. Gentiles were not joining Israel and the Old Covenant; all were joining the Body of Christ in the New Covenant.
It's A) all, or B) nothing. There is no C) law buffet.
The usual response to this is, "One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you." But no. Only if the Gentile was intent on joining in the worship of God. Exodus 12:49 appears in a section that literally spells this out. Same with Numbers 15:16. Citing these "one law" verses to claim the Gentiles were expected to keep the law without joining Israel is not getting around the problem I am describing, it is exactly the problem I am describing (good thing it's a bad reading).
The only laws the Apostles required of the Gentiles were the laws that always applied to all Gentiles in Israel, whether they were joining the worship of God or not. And James confirmed this years later in Acts 21. Who had the law and the traditions? The Jewish converts. Who was taught no such thing? The Gentile converts. (For more, see "Acts 15 - What Was Debated?".)
No, this 'bypass circumcision to get some law' option did not become available after Jesus. It was never an option. There was never the possibility of sitting on a fence between the Old Covenant and the New; truly satisfying neither. Either you believe Jesus did something utterly game-changing, or you believe He did practically nothing. Take your pick. Either way, there is no law buffet.
That isn't what Sabbatarianism needs to happen, though. With option C we are right back again to nullifying everything from Abraham to Jesus. And around and around we shall go.
SAY MY NAME
"It's God's law!" Yes, but to whom? The Sabbath was a sign to whom forever? The Ten Commandments were for whom? The law itself literally says it's for Israel. Over and over and over again. To get that law, Sabbatarianism erases Israel and inserts themselves. Every time Sabbatarians erase Israel - saying things like, "Moses told
people," (meaning us) or "God said to
us," etc etc - they show how they believe the Gentiles were
not strangers at all and there was
no substantive point to Israel.
Take this meme pictured here for one example of myriads. Ignore the obvious 'doom and gloom' emotional manipulation and just look at the first line. "Moses told the people," it says. Is there anything odd about that? I asked the author a simple question: "What people?" That's literally all I said. The author clearly did not like this and responded rather harshly, "If you are asking that question, that’s telling me you don’t understand history, biblical history and you lack hermeneutics! I will not entertain arguments here." To which I responded, "Why not just write the people to whom Moses spoke?" No response.
What about my question was so threatening? There is a one-word answer, and it would be simple to write: Israel.
Moses did not tell "people" (meaning the world); he told Israel.
But we can't have that, can we? We need to edit Israel out so we can replace it with "us" because the goal is to get that law (some of it), to take what is not ours, and to look sanctimonious and holy and obedient as we do it. Consider the absurdity: We disobey God if we don't vacate God's judgment against the Gentiles, replace Israel as the chosen people, heavily edit the law so we can keep a small fraction of it, and do it all through backdoors!?!
"We're obeying!"
Sure you are!
You know exactly what was threatening about my question. The author knew it. Her statement, "I will not entertain arguments here," gives it away. All that, "you don’t understand history," stuff was just bluster and distraction. She knew that to say "Israel" was to betray her goal. That is why she snapped at me.
CONCLUSION
This is what goes on behind the curtain:
Reverse Gentile disinheritance → replace Israel → heavily edit the law → retain a fraction of it → claim we love Torah and we're obeying God's will.
I reject all of that.
Here is what I see in the Bible:
Gentile disinheritance → Israel called and given the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the service of God, and the promises → Messiah comes and dies to redeem us → believing Jews and Gentiles join the Body of Christ → following the Holy Spirit into righteousness by faith expressed in acts of love.
It's better to give than receive, but it's better to receive than to take.
I do have a deep respect for the law, even if I don't believe the letter of those written codes directly apply to me. There is much to be learned from the law even if it was not mine to keep. And what do I respect most? The law shows my insufficiency and need for a Savior. Those laws belonged to Israel. It is their heritage. I can't have the law ...unless I join Israel. In which case I get all the law, including its condemnations (GAL. 5:3). But that's the wrong Covenant.
Know that those things we look to get from the law, like righteousness and obedience, do not come from the law in the first place. Sabbatarianism confuses law with righteousness. True righteousness does not come from the law. The law shows us that we are not righteous, then punishes us for it. So why do we pursue it? Rather, pursue what can bring these things. The righteousness God is looking for, the righteousness the patriarchs had, is the righteousness which only comes by faith - His own righteousness. In us and credited to us by faith from first to last.
Sabbatarianism goes chasing after the wrong thing in the wrong place, and causes chaos along the way.
There is no back door into the Old Covenant. There is no secret tunnel to the Sabbath day. The buffet is a lie. Changing Genesis 2 is pointless. Misquoting Mark 2 will not avail. Bypassing Israel or pretending to be Israel is futile. Just let what was written be what it is. The Gentiles were on the outside; Israel was not. If you are a Gentile, then accept it. Own it. Take the L. Have that humility. Be all the more thankful for what God did through Jesus Christ. Join the New Covenant. Our efforts at changing the law to make it applicable to all people circumvents the old process and the new. It undermines everything from Abraham to Jesus. It devalues the Jews. It vacates God's judgment. It diminishes the Messiah. I want nothing to do with this.
I have an underlying theme in my articles which isn't readily apparent: Christ is sufficient. In this case, it takes the form of Christ is the door, and anyone who enters in any other way is a thief and a robber. I could title this article "Christ is the door."
I am a Gentile. I have no business in this, in and of myself. I am excluded from those things. Hopeless. But thanks only to the grace of God, I am now redeemed by the blood of Jesus. Those who were not His are again His. Only by being grafted into Him are we inheritors of the promises to Abraham. As Paul said; a tree we do not naturally belong in. Not because of the law and not to law-keeping, but to faith in Christ expressed in love. I should be eternally grateful to Christ for this thing which He didn't have to do and I didn't earn.
I enter by the front door. As for me and my house, Christ is sufficient.
As Bereans Did has several articles intended to help people see that there are other things to consider here, other ways to look at verses, other critical facts that have been left out of the Sabbatarian equation
Editing the Ten Commandments
Common Legalist Arguments - Part I
If You Love Me Keep My Commandments
The Covenant and The Testimony
What Does The New Testament Teach About Law and Grace?
Confusing the Covenants
Parties to the Covenants
Is Ceremonial Law Removed?
Without Law There Is No Sin
What Use Is The Old Law?
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
Are The Ten Commandments Removed?
Is the Sabbath A Test Commandment?
Acts 15 - More Law Later?
