I have a very short post today. Just some thoughts on a curious topic.
Sometimes I haunt a few Seventh Day Adventist outreach groups. "Battle groups" I call them. Mainstream Christians and SDA gather together there to bash each other with their side of the story and see who comes out the least bloodied. I don't necessarily recommend engaging in groups like that. It certainly isn't for everyone. It just adds to the anxiety and blood pressure while detracting from the beauty and length of life. It can turn you bitter. Why do I lurk there, you ask? Because I like to see both sides and this is the most efficient way I have found to do that. IF I can manage the self control to stay out of the fray, I tend to get a good look at arguments and motivations.
I have witnessed something in those groups that I find interesting. A strange pattern. Even though you won't see it in Armstrongist circles, a version of it certainly is there none the less. I am referring to the way Adventists say, "The law (the Ten Commandments)."
You might remember this phrase from my post "One Jot Or One Tittle". It's something that, once you see it, you will keep seeing it over and over from Adventists.
Why does that interest me? Because it seems like the ultimate retcon.
They are using the phrase "the law" but then limiting it only to the Ten, literally altering what "the law" means. How do you solve the problem of the law being eternal but ceremonial and national laws are clearly gone? Why, redefine "the law", of course. You just remove 603 laws as if they don't count. Sweep them right under that celestial rug.
Just look at the difference this makes:
The law, all 613, are eternal.
The law (the Ten Commandments) are eternal.
Did you see that? Just think about the ramifications of what I did there. Now, I can have my beloved Sabbath day and not have to worry about levirate marriage or how many turtle doves my offense warrants be sacrificed. It's a total win!
Except, I have absolutely no justification for what I just did.
If you can change what "the law" means, why not change anything you want? If you can wipe out 603 laws as if they don't exist all for the predetermined end of gaining a Sabbath day, then what's to stop you from changing anything at any time? And what help is reasoned discourse going to be if you can just alter facts and figures and definitions at will? The phrase "The law (the Ten Commandments)" represents one of the biggest departures from reality that I can think of.
And where does it come from? It isn't a phrase, or even an idea, that you get from the Bible. This means it's a learned thing. Like propaganda spread by the mainstream media. Someone had to teach this phrase to the people who parrot it. It had to be the Adventist leadership. We here know the bad habit of proof texting. What proof text do they use? One is James 2: 11:
(JAS. 2: 11) For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
"See," they say, "sometimes the phrase 'the law' is referring to the Ten Commandments."
But is James referring only to the Ten here? No. Let's go back one verse:
(JAS. 2: 10) For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
James did not say "the law" here but "the whole law". James is talking about how violating any point of law makes you guilty of all the whole body of law. James is not saying that if you break one of the Ten then you are guilty of all Ten. It's the whole thing. Then he gives an example. Yes, James does give an example form the Ten, but you cannot take verse 11 without verse 10. The phrase "the law" in 11 does not refer only to the Ten Commandments but to the whole law, because it is a continuation of the idea in 10. "The law" in verse 11 means the same as "the whole law" in 10 - they both refer to the whole law. What's more, neither of those two verses can be taken apart from the context of the surrounding chapter, which is primarily about showing partiality. There is no Commandment against showing partiality. You would have to seriously squint and turn your head sideways to believe that James suddenly thinks "the whole law" means only the Ten. You simply cannot reach that distant conclusion from proof texting James 2: 11.
And this says nothing about how the Adventists also observe [their own view of] tithing and meats laws. Those aren't in the Ten. Over and over we see how legalism wants to have it both ways.
This phrase conveys an understanding about how Adventists see the law. Their doctrine is designed around the Ten Commandments. They have distilled the entire Hebrew system, and [their own view of] Christianity as well, down to the Ten Commandments. Correction - the fourth Commandment. Because we all know this is really about the Sabbath day. Adventism is rooted and founded, built and layered, and their whole identity is contingent upon a day of the week. To the point that when they say "the law" they then follow that up with "(the Ten Commandments)", just so we will all be sure exactly what the phrase "the law" actually means in their system. It's right there in the name: Seventh Day.
But this blog isn't about Adventists. Why would the readers here care about them? Because Armstrongism is a branch of Adventism. Armstrong was a credentialed leader in the Church of God (Seventh Day) which split from the SDA church at the very meeting where they decided on the name Seventh Day Adventists. Armstrongism is the grandchild of the SDA church. We have many articles on this. I recommend "COG Theological Ancestry" and "Herbert W Armstrong's Doctrines and Fruit".
Much of Armstrongism comes from Adventism (and the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormons, and...). Plus, what happens in Adventism has been known to infect Armstrongism. This phrase is something Armstrongists would do well to avoid.
CONCLUSION
This is a short post, because it is just about me thinking out loud about a curiosity. "The law (the Ten Commandments)" is unfamiliar and strange to me. Finding no real support for it at all, I reject it.
You will not find that idea in the Bible - that the law is just the Ten Commandments. In order to justify this, you literally have to go back to when Moses came down that mountain with tablets in hand. Forget everything after that. You will not find authorization for it. You will not find precedent for it. You cannot say the Ten are the only laws mentioned in either the New or the Old Testaments. The Ten are only ten of the 613 mitzvot recognized by the Jews. Clearly, there are more than ten laws in the Old Covenant. I don't think any proof text can justify this phrase. So, when Adventists say, "the law (the Ten Commandments)," this is entirely an Adventist idea. Insular to their community.
After the fact, they've gone backwards and retconned the law.
I think what bothers me the most about it is how it holds a mirror up to humanity. What do I mean by that? I mean it showcases to what great lengths the human heart will go to justify itself. We will distort reality into any shape so long as we think it gets us what we want. Even if we then turn immediately around and contradict ourselves. We want it both ways and neither, and we will do anything necessary to get it.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?
************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************
5 comments:
Your post underscores the absurdity of trying to find a rationale for obeying some of the commands of Torah, while avoiding/ignoring others. The fact that both Testaments view that legislation as an inseparable whole poses an insurmountable challenge to their doctrine. As you point out, this goes to the heart of their raison d'etre. The Sabbath, Holy Days, clean/unclean, etc. is what makes them different from everyone else. It is what they employ to make them the "true" disciples and everyone else pretenders. We should also note, however, that these folks aren't the only members of the Christian community who do this - Catholics affirm the Ten, some Catholics and Protestants affirm prohibitions related to homosexual behaviors, cross-dressing, tattoos, etc. based on Torah, Jehovah's Witnesses affirm prohibitions related to blood, etc. They use the provisions of Torah that support/reinforce their beliefs and reject anything they don't like, or which would interfere with their practices. Armstrongist love to divide the commands of Torah into categories (moral, ceremonial/ritualistic, civil, etc.), and then proclaim that only one category of commands is still binding on Christians (moral). However, if you look at the arguments put forward by Vance Stinson (CGI), I believe that he is getting danger close to the SDA slight-of-hand about defining the Law as the Ten.
As you point out their desire is to make the ten commandments stand alone and then the next step is to point to the need to observe Sabbath. Then, beyond that, their next step is to claim status of being the one true church. Whether it be Adventists or Armstrong their motives are the same.
Jesus’ statement in Matthew chapter 5 concerns the law, and in my view, it is essential to our understanding of the law of the old covenant and its relation to the new covenant: “17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, ……”.
Verse 21 refers to one of the ten commandments- “thou shall not kill”. Verse 27 ,in similar fashion, refers to adultery, also one of the ten commandments;
Verse 31 refers divorce; Verse 33 to not swearing; Verse 38 to eye for an eye; verse 40 to suing and taking part of your garment etc - all of which can be shown to extend to laws beyond the Ten Commandments.
Compare also verses 21 and 27 to Exodus 20:13, 14.
In this exposition Jesus refers to six precepts of the law. The first two precepts as noted above are the sixth and seventh Commandments.
The other examples taken by Jesus and included in Matthew 5 did not come from the Decalogue. Clearly, they came from other parts of the law, in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The reference is to the whole law not just parts and there is no doubt in this matter.
Therefore the coverage of the “law” - as Jesus taught it - includes the Ten Commandments as well as all other laws.
The Armstrong teaching that the law of Moses means ceremonial customs only, and the Ten Commandments are separated from the mosaic covenant, is completely irrelevant because:
- as noted Matthew 5 shows Jesus did not make the Ten Commandments a separate category. Jesus placed the ten commandments together with other laws/ principles from the mosaic covenant - and they were all described as “the law”.
(The mosaic covenant is recognized to be the books from Exodus 20 through to Deuteronomy 33.)
Division of the Old covenant law into categories such as civil or legal or moral etc is merely a convention devised in an attempt to aid understanding.
Also, in Luke 24:44: “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. ”
Verse 44 mentions the usual distinction among the Jews of the books of the Old Testament : the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; among which last stands the book of Psalms - as such it represents the remainder.
These statements in verse 44 therefore refer to the entirety of the Old Testament scriptures.
In this context, it is neither logical nor correct to argue the Ten Commandments stand alone. Thus, in relation to this first matter a most reasonable conclusion is that Armstrong’s statement is wrong. If a reader has an alternate view on Jesus’s instructions on the law I would be interested to hear.
Biblical usage of the term “law and prophets”: There are ten other occurrences in the New Testament where the term ‘the law and the prophets,’ is used.
In each of these occurrences ‘law’ refers to the Torah, the first five books. Also, ‘prophets’ means the rest of the old testament scriptures. Please note that this observation relies on scholarly research. The term “law and prophets’’ therefore extends to the entirety of what we call the Old Testament scriptures, something that is very different from the argument made by Armstrong that law of Moses means ceremonial rules only, and the Decalogue is separate.
Again, it means the entirety of the scriptures that then existed.
A very detailed and cogent case you make, WOWFJI. Thank you.
I imagine an Armstrongist would just dismiss you outright with some excuse like you rely on deceived scholars. We know that kind of accusation is ridiculous, but it works on them.
I've been debating with these people ever since the ex-WCG pages on Facebook fell apart. The SDA pages for former and current members are still very much alive and kicking. Their reasoning for distinguishing the 10 from the rest is simple. It was written in stone by the finger of God. Plain and simple. Yet they offer no biblical proof of that being the reasoning for them being eternal. They also separate it from the rest of the law as "moral law" which is still in effect and anything they don't want to keep as "ceremonial". When you quote 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, they go completely silent. I often wonder why I even bother to engage with them. The answer is simple. Many will be reading these posts who are on the fence. As former members of the Armstrong cult, we were all there at one time. Devout, but at some point, something just didn't ring true and we began to wonder. Those are the people I'm trying to persuade, not the die hards who would rather go to eternal damnation as a sabbathkeeper than accept God's free gift of salvation in Christ Jesus.
Funny how the Jews never thought the Ten being written by the finger of God (and then smashed by Moses) made a difference. They clearly and unmistakably say all 613 are equal. Along come some fringe Protestants almost 3,000 years later, and now we have, "It was written by the finger of God." Sounds a bit desperate to me.
A moral law is any law that was written by the finger of God? That doesn't even work. Let's just say for the sake of argument that God wrote a law about not cutting the corners of your hair. Would that now be a moral law?
Post a Comment