Review - Written By The Finger of God

Given my recent foray into the Seventh Day Adventist view of "The Law (the Ten Commandments)", I thought it would be interesting to see if SDA ideas and interpretations had already made their way into Armstrongism. It only took minutes to answer that question. Yes, they have. And for quite a while now, at that.

Today's post is going to be a companion to the post I just linked to. If you haven't read that post, you won't fully understand this one. And if you haven't read that post recently, you will miss some parallels in this one.

In that post, I received a comment from a long-time reader, Child Survivor. They say, "Their [the SDA's] reasoning for distinguishing the 10 from the rest is simple. It was written in stone by the finger of God."
I decided if I was to learn if Adventism has infected Armstrongism this would be where I start looking. It wasn't long until I found an article on the United Church of God's Beyond Today site, entitled "Written By The Finger of God", authored by one Robert Berendt, and posted July 3, 2001.
All of my quotes from Mr. Berendt will be from this publication. It is web-based, so there are no page numbers to reference.

Herbert Armstrong, it is said, got his inspiration from God by borrowing material from other churches. One of his favorite sources was the COG7's "Bible Advocate" magazine. We talk about this in our article "This Has All Happened Before". Could it be the tradition of taking ideas from other churches lives on at the UCG? I suspect so.

There are three things you should keep in mind as you read this:
1) All the Old Covenant law, including the Sabbath, only exist as terms within a covenant. God didn't bring laws on their own. God brought a Covenant. That covenant had terms.
2) The Old Covenant was for Israel only and excluded the Gentiles almost entirely.
3) The Sabbath was not a day to go to church. It was a day of rest. It's about resting from normally assigned tasks, not going to corporate worship.

IT'S LIKE SO AMAZING

"It is quite amazing that we humans do not recognize the importance of the Biblical statement that the Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God."
-Robert Berendt

Is it truly that important, though, or is this just rhetoric? Is it true that, specifically because they were written by the finger of God, we can set the Ten above all other laws? Is that the critical MISSING KEY (to borrow a phrase from Herbert Armstrong)? What other evidence supports this?

Moses didn't think it was that important when he smashed those tablets. The Jews don't think it to be critically important. All 613 mitzvot are equal to them. When Jesus was asked what are the great commandments in the law, He did not respond, "Why, the Ten, of course, because I wrote those with my own finger." No, He spoke of other laws on which all the law and the prophets hang. The Apostles never mentioned it. Paul didn't feel the ministry of death was any less deadly just because it was written and engraved on stone by God (II COR. 3: 7), or any less the law of sin and death (ROM. 8: 2). It wasn't emphasized in the early church. Even Herbert Armstrong didn't make a big deal about it. What Armstrong made a big deal about was the "Law of Moses - Law of God" issue. Rod Meredith wrote the Worldwide Church of God's official booklet on the Ten Commandments. Although he does say the Ten are the spiritual law, he didn't base that on the finger of God. He didn't base it on anything, really. He didn't mention the finger of God at all. In fact, it didn't seem to be all that important to anyone anywhere until the Seventh Day Adventists decided to make it a big deal. This is a claim they make central. The UCG only borrows the notion.
Bear this in mind the next time you say, "I don't care about the traditions of men."

It's as if it only has importance when you're already a Sabbatarian surrounded by other Sabbatarians and you're trying to reinforce what everyone already agrees on. In a phrase, confirmation bias. Perhaps what is amazing is that people think it's amazing.

You can see this is mere confirmation bias from questions such as this:

"Do we comprehend the magnificence of the Ten Commandments? Why would God take the time to speak them and then write them twice?"
-Robert Berendt

Because Moses broke the first set. That's why He did it twice. It's no grand mystery.

Someone might ask, was it not amazing, though, that God wrote these Himself? I would say it was a direct divine act, and so, yes, it was amazing. But, then again, so is "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin". Am I supposed to hold those words in incredible regard, too? Since those words were written by the finger of God, are they universal moral law, too? Amazing, yes, but to what end?

"But xHWA," one might say, "the Bible doesn't say those words were written by the very finger of God."
Oh please. In Exodus 18: 9, it says the plague of lice were the "finger of God." Do we really need to parse the use of "finger of God" to see if it is literal or idiomatic? I would rather not. A disembodied hand writing on a wall in a language no one but Daniel can interpret is plenty miraculous no matter how you argue about exactly whose finger it was.

There is no justification for the type of emphasis people are putting on the Ten. "God wrote them Himself, therefore they are moral and special above all other laws, and eternal, and binding on all mankind" simply does not make logical sense.

We've already reviewed this in our series "Is Ceremonial Law Removed?" and "Are the Ten Commandments Removed?"

Let me ask you this question. Which is more amazing: that God wrote on stone, or that God became man and died and was resurrected and now puts the Holy Spirit into your heart? I don't know about you, but I'm choosing the latter. Writing on stone just isn't the amazing, crucial thing the author is trying to build it into. At the end of the day, those laws could not accomplish God's purpose (ACT. 13: 39; ROM. 8: 3; GAL. 3: 21), and the Old Covenant is gone (HEB. 8: 6, 31).

Don't get me wrong here. I am not making the case that there is nothing at all unique about the Ten. What I am saying is, I do not see any evidence that being written by the finger or God conveys any special powers on the Ten, or makes the Ten somehow timeless and binding on all men. In other words, this claim just doesn't do what the author hopes it will. We just do not see that in the other evidence we have. It seems like a gross overstatement of the case.

WE ARE GATHERED HERE TODAY

Before I get too far in, I want to acknowledge that not everything Mr. Berendt writes is wrong. For example, he writes:

"It is astonishing to think that humans can presume that God would allow them to change His commandments ... there are those who try to change the commandments such as moving the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday."
-Robert Berendt

Well, yeah. I agree. Anyone who thinks Sunday is the Sabbath, or even the Christian Sabbath, simply does not understand the difference. Sunday is not the Sabbath and never has been. It's precisely this kind of misunderstanding that got us into this mess with Sabbatarianism in the first place.

I want to briefly and roughly explore the history which got us to the problem we face today. If you think history is boring, just skip to the next section.

Shortly after the Reformation, the common person had access to the scriptures but had no access to original languages, or formal training, or understanding of proper hermeneutics, or most any resource whatsoever they would need to correctly interpret what they were reading. They started from the false premise that Sunday is the Sabbath, which it is not, and things only got worse from there. They opened their Bibles and what did they see? Lo and behold, the seventh day is the Sabbath. "Hey," they thought, "it says right here Saturday is the Sabbath. My church is wrong!" And the solution in their less than expert opinions was, "We should be going to church on Saturday."
This is the genesis of Sabbatarianism and all those "you can't change the 4th commandment" complaints.

The problem we face today comes directly from people forcing Sunday to fulfill the 4th Commandment, compounded by other people who shouldn't be making doctrinal decisions trying to resolve the issue and coming to a very wrong conclusion that everyone must go to church on Saturday.

In the 1500s, small groups of people in Europe start going to church on Saturday. In the 1600s, we have evangelists like Stephen Mumford travelling to New England to convert Sunday Christians to Saturday. In the 1700s, we have Seventh Day Baptists in New England. In the 1800s, a few Seventh Day Baptists converted a few Adventists to Sabbatarianism. And then a few Seventh Day Adventists split to form the COG7, and then Herbert Armstrong was fired from the COG7 and formed his own church, and today you're reading my blog.

We see starting from a false premise leads to wild conclusions.

I don't know when Sunday started being viewed as the Christian Sabbath and the new way to interpret the 4th Commandment. I cannot find anything like that in the first few centuries. I owe yet another thanks to Terracet, who sent me an email a while ago. In the email, Terracet mentioned this footnote from Philip Schaff:

"i.e. Saturday. Sunday is never called ‘the Sabbath’ by the ancient Fathers and historians, but ‘the Lord’s day’ (κυριακε)."
-Schaff, Philip, "Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers: Second Series", Edinburgh, 1890.
Specifically, footnote 789, "The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus", Book V, Chapter XXII.
On Sacred-Texts, https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/202/2020187.htm#fn_788.

I agree with Schaff on this point. Reading early works such as "The Didache" or Justin Martyr's "Dialogue With Trypho", we can see a very clear distinction between the Lord's Day and the Sabbath. As we learned in our study into the Quartodecimans, they were also not the Sabbath keepers we were led to believe they were. The Quartodecimans had a radically different view of Sabbath-keeping than Armstrongism.

Some people want to create a hard dichotomy in the early years. They imagine there were either people who went to church on Saturday, or on Sunday, but not both. That is not true. Most people did things on both days. There were Jewish converts who kept a Sabbath per their national heritage and observed the Lord's Day. More than that, there were many who treated neither like a Sabbath day. The Jewish Sabbath just did not exist for most Gentiles. The rest given us by Christ is the Sabbath rest that remains. Even so, they did not treat Sunday like a new Sabbath. That started later on.

Some say the one who first came up with the notion was Origen. But what did Origen mean when he said, "On Sunday none of the actions of the world should be done"? Was it work, or sin?

Some prefer to blame Constantine. We write about that in our article "Constantine vs The Sabbath". The answer is not entirely there, either. Constantine did make Sunday into a day of rest, but in a purely civil capacity not a religious one, and not for everyone because farmers were still allowed to farm. We have to look elsewhere for the full reason Sunday became a day of rest within the church.

The first genuinely unmistakable thing I find is in the Council of Laodicea (about 365 AD), Canon 29, which is translated:

"Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."
-Schaff, Philip, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers", Second Series, Vol. 14.
On Christian Classics Etherial Library, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.viii.vii.iii.xxxiv.html

This makes me somewhat comfortable in accepting the change happened in the 4th century. But, again, farmers were allowed to farm on Sunday. So, a more complete change must have happened later still.

Note: I am not saying Sunday as the Lord's Day started in the fourth century. That started early in the first century. Nor am I saying Sunday took over from what used to be Saturday's job in the fourth century, as if there were some great shift from Saturday to Sunday. I know someone out there will read what I wrote and conclude, "See! xHWA just said Sunday worship started in the 4th century!" No. I did not say that. I said treating Sunday like it fulfills the 4th Commandment seems to have started in the 4th century.

If Archbishop James Cardinal Gibbons, about whom we write in our article "Rome's Challenge", wanted to flex against the Protestants, he would have done better to say the Protestants observe Sunday as a Sabbath due to the authority of the Catholic Church. Sabbatarianism is a direct response to this. So, if you think about it, Sabbatarianism is built on the authority of the Catholic Church.

We should talk about that for a second. The Catholic Church does not hesitate to claim it is the church Jesus started and it has the authority to make doctrinal decisions. Same goes for the Orthodox. The Unified Church (the church before the Catholic/Orthodox split in 1054 AD) made this decision at Laodicea. The Council of Laodicea is an "ecumenical council". So, we have to decide whether they have the authority to bind or loose these kinds of things on their own adherents. Maybe you think they have no right to bind it on you, but do they have the right to bind it on themselves? They think they do. All churches make decisions for themselves, or else there wouldn't be any denominations. The COG splinter churches do the exact same thing all the time. And I'm sure you and I make decisions for ourselves. So, was it entirely unreasonable?
But that debate is outside the scope of this post.

If that one change had been avoided, Protestants wouldn't have retained it, other Protestants wouldn't have reacted to it, and there would be no Seventh Day Adventists - just Adventists only, with their failed prophecies - and Armstrong never would have been converted to it. All of this nonsense we are mired in today could have been avoided. And best of all, I wouldn't have to blog about it and you wouldn't have to be here reading and being angry at me.

What Jesus did with the Sabbath Day was dissolve it when He ended the Old Covenant at His death. He is our eternal Sabbath rest. Perhaps it should have been left at that.

ONE COVENANT

"There is a huge difference between all that Moses later relayed to Israel from God and the Ten Commandments that were written by the finger of God."
-Robert Berendt

Ummmmm ... no. There is no difference.

Mr. Berendt here is trying to distinguish the Ten above all other laws. Correction, he is trying to distinguish the Sabbath Day - because we all know Sabbatarianism isn't a quest to get the world to stop bearing false witness. They bear false witness all the time. Let's not pretend this is about anything other than the Sabbath day.

There is no functional difference at all between "all that Moses later relayed to Israel from God" (and by "later" we mean over the next several weeks) and the Ten Commandments. Why is there no difference? Because there is only one Covenant.

All were part of one Covenant made with Israel at Sinai. Period. Full stop. All the whole law are co-equal terms of one and the same Covenant. We've said it here a thousand times -
      The law does not exist apart from the covenant.
The individual laws do not stand alone. The whole Old Covenant law only exists within and because of the Old Covenant. The law is the singular body of terms of the singular covenant. The covenant is what binds the law on the people. They agreed to the terms of the covenant (the law).
Sabbatarianism simply ignores the Covenant altogether in favor some of its terms.

We have gone over all of this many times before. I suggest you read "The Covenant and the Testimony".

Here is what the Jews believe about their law:

"All 613 of those mitzvot [laws] are equally sacred, equally binding and equally the word of G-d. All of these mitzvot are treated as equally important..."
-"Aseret ha-Dibrot: The Ten Commandments", Tracery R Rich, Judaism 101. Accessed 6-2024.

James, a Jew and zealous for the whole law not just the Ten (and in the very next breath reminds us the law was not binding on Gentiles), tells us if you've stumbled in any of the whole law, you've broken it all (JAS. 2: 10). The law is one unit. The law is not divided by the Bible into the moral law, the national law, and the ceremonial law. Those are manmade constructs. Helpful, but manmade. It's the same thing here. The law is not divided into the Ten and all those other ones over there somewhere. There is no functional difference at all. There is no difference because regardless of who wrote them or when they were given, they are all terms of one Covenant.

If you aren't keeping all the law, then you aren't keeping the law at all. (GAL. 3: 10)

TRANSGRESSION

"The Ten Commandments define sin and give guidelines for humans to live by."
-Robert Berendt

Ummmmm ... what??

I don't know where Mr. Berendt gets this idea that the Ten define sin. The Ten specifically. Not from the Bible! He might grab his King James version and open to I John 3: 4, which reads:

(I JON. 3: 4) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

We address the horrendous translation of this verse in the KJV in several articles. We recommend "Antinomianism and Motivation of Heart". In short, that mistranslation is not what the Greek means.
But Mr. Berendt does not grab his KJV to support his claim. He does not use this verse to support his claim at all. He does cite this verse later in his article, but from another version which translates it very differently. If the author didn't get his claim from this verse in the KJV, where did he get it? He doesn't say. He just makes the claim as if it is axiomatic and we are all just going to agree with it. But it isn't obvious at all.

I will tell you where he gets it. He gets it from Herbert Armstrong. 

"...the TEN COMMANDMENTS, God's great SPIRITUAL LAW..."
-Herbert Armstrong, "What Is The True Gospel?", 1972, p. 10

The main justifying verse Armstrong used was Matthew 19: 17-19, where Jesus tells the Rich Young Ruler to keep the Ten Commandments in order to enter into life.

Except! The Rich Young Ruler replies he has been doing that his whole life. Clearly this was a set up. Jesus was leading the young man to something. Jesus then tells him to sell everything he has and follow Him, which saddens the man, who then walks away. The point was never the Ten. Jesus knew the man was already keeping the Ten. It is good that he did so! He was a Jew in the Old Covenant period, after all. It just wasn't sufficient. The point was faith. Jesus demonstrated that even the Rich Young Man's best actions and intentions were insufficient where salvation is concerned, and encouraged him to place his faith in Him. The man didn't like that and went away. He had the Commandments, but refused faith. The "great SPIRITUAL LAW" got him precisely nowhere.
When the Apostles asked Jesus about all of this, His point was not at all about keeping the Ten Commandments. It was entirely about faith. This is the same chapter and selection where you get these two very popular sayings:

“With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (v. 26)
"But many who are first will be last, and the last first." (v. 30)

Martha goes into more detail on this topic in her article, "Who Requires What For Salvation?"

That is where Mr. Berendt gets his claim about the Ten Commandments - from Herbert Armstrong bungling a proof-text.

What Mr. Berendt does here is the exact same thing the Adventists do when they say "the law (the Ten Commandments)". They take the whole law, throw away almost all of it, and limit it to the Ten only. We talked about this very thing in my article in the link at the start of this post. Clearly, Adventism has infected Armstrongism. My fears seem confirmed. But where do the Adventists get it? Nowhere! They just make it up and expect us to accept it.

"Can we humans discard or change that which God wrote?"
"Can we add to the laws or take away portions? I think not!"
-Robert Berendt

Well, apparently yes, we can. Because he's doing it right here! He is discarding 98% of the law and retaining 2%.

And it's not just here. Armstrongism changes the law all the time. Just look at how Armstrongism flagrantly changes the law in order to receive tithes. For example, read my post "Who Pays Tithe of a Tithe?"

Again and again and again we see legalism wants it both ways. They don't want anyone to touch the Sabbath, claiming the law is eternal and inviolable, but they immediately discard or change the vast majority of the other laws. And if you want to really split hairs, they change the Sabbath, too. They change it from a day of rest to a day of church and other activities.

This approach causes more issues than it solves. If the Ten define sin, anything not mentioned in the Ten cannot be sin. That is a terrible issue for a legalist system. If the Ten define sin, then you can ignore tithing, meats, holy days, and etc. Whoops!

What did we just explore in the previous section? That the Ten are not above and beyond the rest of the law. Peculiar among the laws in how they were given, yes, but above and beyond the rest of the laws, no. There, Mr. Berendt drove a wedge between the Ten and the rest of the laws, but at least he kept the rest around. Here, Mr. Berendt replaces all laws with just the Ten. I cannot agree that is how the Old Covenant functioned. More importantly, I cannot agree that is how the New Covenant functions.

Bear in mind, we can debate all day long about how the Ten were this or that, or how the Old Covenant operated this way or that, but the Old Covenant is gone. There is no Old Covenant anymore. We are not under that Covenant. We are in the New Covenant. Everything we are discussing here is purely academic.

But if you think what Mr. Berendt did in this section is unorthodox, just you wait. It gets worse.

AD ABSURDIUM

"Hebrews 8:5 reveals that what God instructed Moses to make was a COPY of that which is in heaven! Moses was to be careful of each detail. Can we not see that what was within the ark was also a copy?"
-Robert Berendt

Again ... what??

For some background, Mr. Berendt is trying to build a case for the Ten by saying they are special in that they are a copy built after a master original in Heaven. The Bible never says this. The Bible never even remotely says this.

Mr. Berendt starts by saying the Ten were placed in the earthly Ark. And they were. That much is true. What Ark? The Ark of the Covenant. The Ten, which represent all the terms of the Old Covenant, were placed in the Ark, the container, of the Covenant. Again, the star of this show is the Covenant, not the Ten.
Mr. Berendt proceeds to point out God told Moses to make a careful copy of things in Heaven. And this is true. But not in Exodus 25: 10-22, where the construction of the Ark was described. Mr. Berendt's implication is that the Ark and the Ten are copies of originals that exist in Heaven. For his proof text, he cites Hebrews 8: 5. Let's read that for ourselves:

(HEB. 8: 5) They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

Mind the details! Does it say the Ark is a copy? No. More importantly, does it say the tablets are copies? No. They also put the Book of the Law in there (DEU. 31: 26). Nothing says that was a copy. Aaron's rod that budded was in the Ark, too. Does it say the rod that budded was a copy? No. "But xHWA," I hear someone saying, "Moses didn't make the rod that budded." Correct. He also didn't make the tablets. Remember, Mr. Berendt spent most of his time emphasizing how God wrote on the tablets, not Moses. Why, God's participation is the very thing at the center of this entire post, is it not? But now it's Moses making the tablets. Did God make them or did Moses? Can't have it both ways!

What does it say? The tabernacle, the sanctuary where the Levites served, was a copy. It wasn't that the Ark was a copy, but the sanctuary, the place where the Ark was kept, was a copy. Nowhere does the Bible say God sits on a box with two cherubs over His head. Even when we see representations of God's mobile throne, does it look like the Ark (EZE. 1: 4-28)? No. So, how are the Ark and the two tablets an exact copy? They aren't.

And again, let's read how Paul continues his point:

(HEB. 9: 23-24) 23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.

Does it say Christ entered the Ark? No. Does it say Christ entered the tablets? No. It says He entered a sanctuary. Were the tablets purified with blood every year at Atonement? No. The altar was purified with blood, but not the contents of the Ark.

To support his claim of the Ark being a copy, Mr. Berendt points to Revelation 11: 19, where the Ark is seen in Heaven. He uses this as support that the Ark was always in heaven and the earthly one was just a copy. That is indeed a novel way to interpret this verse. I am unconvinced. I had always been taught this was the Ark that Moses made. We can't find it because it's in Heaven. Yet, I have never found that convincing, either. The Catholics say that is Mary. I am not getting into that here. Just mentioning it as a curiosity and to show there are other ways of interpreting this verse. I interpret Revelation 11: 9 as being just more apocalyptic symbolism.

So, was Paul's (or whoever authored Hebrews) point that absolutely everything, right down to the Ten, is a copy of heavenly originals? No.
The point had nothing to do with the greatness of the Ten, but the superiority of Christ  - particularly the the Priesthood of Christ, the blood of Christ, and the New Covenant in His blood (HEB. 9: 15) - even over Torah. Jesus was greater than the Priesthood and Torah. That is the point.
If Mr. Berendt read Hebrews 8 & 9 and came away with the notion that it demonstrates the superiority of the Old Covenant, I must doubt that he was paying any attention at all.

In our rush to glorify the Ark, let's not forget what Jeremiah said about it:

(JER. 3: 16) “Then it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land in those days,” says the Lord, “that they will say no more, ‘The ark of the covenant of the Lord.’ It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made anymore."

The Lord doesn't seem too concerned over it.

Mr. Berendt starts at a definite and extrapolates to the completely unnecessary.

Personally, I do not think the copies are meant to be understood as exact copies. For example, I don't think there is a tent in Heaven with a curtain and a table for bread. I get the sense that what Moses was told to make are representatives of ideas. God has a temple, so Moses made a tent for a temple. God has an alter, so Moses made a mobile table for an incense altar. They aren't exact copies, but they represent things that are in Heaven. That's just my opinion.

ALL COMMANDMENTS ARE THE TEN COMANDMENTS

The rest of the article is pretty much a grand finale of proof texts containing the English word "commandments" - that do not mean what he takes them to mean - and a bunch of talk about writing the Ten Commandments on hearts - to the exclusion of all other law - and an exhortation to love the Sabbath. Errrr, the Ten, I mean. Typical fare.

As for the English word commandments, we refer you to our article "If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments". It is well past time we get a better quality of discernment in here about this word. I would remind you that the Ten Commandments were never called "commandments" to begin with. That is a mistranslation. Again, I will quote Judaism 101:

"In the Torah, these words are never referred to as the Ten Commandments. In the Torah, they are called Aseret ha-D'varim (Ex. 34:28, Deut. 4:13 and Deut. 10:4). In rabbinical texts, they are referred to as Aseret ha-Dibrot. The words d'varim and dibrot come from the Hebrew root Dalet-Beit-Reish, meaning word, speak or thing; thus, the phrase is accurately translated as the Ten Sayings, the Ten Statements, the Ten Declarations, the Ten Words or even the Ten Things, but not as the Ten Commandments, which would be Aseret ha-Mitzvot."
-"Aseret ha-Dibrot: The Ten Commandments", Tracery R Rich, Judaism 101. Accessed 6-2024.

We cannot give the Ten a new name in English, then use that new name as a basis for interpreting every instance where the English word commandments appears. "Look, these laws are called 'Ten Commandments' now, and there is the word commandments over there, so they are the same thing!" Uhhh .. no. That isn't how proper Bible interpretation works. That is far beyond irresponsible handling of the Word.

As for writing the law on our hearts, we need to think about when God said that. The quote comes from Jeremiah 31: 33. What was the law at that time? Was it the Ten only, or the Ten plus all of those other laws over there somewhere? Obviously it was the whole law. Do you feel like Armstrongists who quote this verse have all 613 laws in mind? No. Does Mr. Berendt have all 613 in mind? No. They all have taken the law, split it into three groups - moral, ceremonial, and national - then evaporated 2/3. We can see every legalist who pulls this proof text fails to believe it themselves. It sounds great when you want to support Sabbath-keeping, but not so great when you understand that package comes with a requirement for New Moons, Gentile exclusion, three trips to Jerusalem every year, booths, shofars, tzitzit, and a Sanhedrin (just to mention a few things). So, I say no legalist who cites this verse really believes it.
My old catch phrase seems particularly relevant here, "The law! The law! Just not that law."

For more on the law being written on your heart, see Bill's article "The Spirit of the Law".

CONCLUSION

Did you keep those three items in mind form the start of this article? Do you see how nothing in this entire article changes any of those three? 

In his article, Mr. Berendt took an idea, blew it grossly out of proportion, and hoped the wonder and glamour of it would sufficiently distract you from noticing there is no substance to it.
The main thrust of this article is the mere fact that the Ten were written by the finger of God makes them superior to all other laws, replacements for all other laws (the ones we don't like), universally applicable to all mankind, and all people should go to church on Saturday. The main flaw in the article is the main idea is unproved. He never proved that being written by the finger of God has those results.

I counter "written by God therefore universal" makes no sense, because then anything written by God would need to have those same attributes, including "mene mene tekel upharsin". And "written by God therefore they replace all other laws" makes no sense, which should be self evident, because that should have been true from the very start yet the rest of the law was given after the Ten. If the rest of the law was so replaceable, why give it at all? And "written by God therefore part of the New Covenant" makes zero sense at all, because they were specifically given for the Old Covenant. That just isn't how covenants work. And "written by God therefore go to church on Saturday" makes no sense, because the Sabbath was about rest not church. Going to church on Saturday is a tradition of men.

Are the Ten special? I think so. They were written and engraved on stone separately from the rest. I just don't agree that gives them all these attributes Mr. Berendt and the Adventists claim it gives them.

I find the argument that God wrote the Ten with His own hand to be much less convincing than most other arguments. It seems like a grand stretch to me. It definitely bears the marks of confirmation bias. Even when taken with the totality of the rest of the claims of Armstrongism, I just cannot find enough to convince me. Too much other evidence has to be altered or ignored or redefined, or in some cases outright lied about, and that is something I just can't get past. After all that effort, in order to get the Ten to be binding on all mankind, the author is still left trying to find something in the New Covenant that ties the Ten to Gentiles. Being written by the finger of God at Sinai just is not that something.

As for the article itself, it was merely typical at best. Nothing in particular stood out to me. Clearly, it was written for people who already believe like the author. I agreed with the part where he claimed the Sabbath cannot be changed to Sunday. It cannot. I was most disappointed at the section where the author tried to claim the Ten are a copy of originals in Heaven. They were not. That was just taking it too far for my taste. And I believe all this mess stems from unqualified Protestants in the 16th century coming to regrettable conclusions. But at the same time, the article wasn't particularly ridiculous or poisonous like other articles I've reviewed. One particularly bad example would be "Review of COGWA's Origin of Easter". That article was really bad!

The main reason I came to this article in the first place was to see if Adventism had infected Armstrongism in this specific topic, due to a comment by Child Survivor on my earlier post "The Law (The Ten Commandments)". It is the Adventists who make a big deal about the finger of God. Sadly, we can see that, yes, the infection has spread. A little. Good thing not too many Armstrongists seem to be more excited about this particular claim than I am.

************

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

************