Accurately Represent Thine Enemy

I was reading a post online recently about God the Son in the Old Testament. One person was responding to something another person had written. The first did not agree with the second and they were explaining why - making an apology, if you will. It was refreshing to read from someone who likes the challenge of reading things they disagree with. One line stood out to me, and it was: 

"I did my best to accurately represent him."

Incredible! And rare. That is a laudable approach and an example I think we all should follow.

Take a look at this paragraph:

"I wrote a new essay. It is responding to [certain author] of [certain podcast]. I'm hoping my language is much more irenic and charitable than the last time I did response content. I really like [certain podcast], and I like [certain author]. I disagree with a good bit of his takes, I agree with many others, and others make me go 'Interesting interpretation. I don't know if I agree or not, but it's an interesting possibility.' At the end of the day, he makes me think. And I like people who challenge me to think, especially about The Bible."

That is the right way, in my view.

I come from an Armstrongist background. Surprise! Bet you didn't know that. It's not like this charitable attitude did not exist at all in that system, but I can say without reservation that it was not the typical approach. Typically, I witnessed contests of ego vs. ego. You could find someone willing to die on every hill, as the expression goes.
(For those who are unfamiliar - the expression "a hill to die on" is a battle metaphor and means to have an opinion so strong you will not change your mind about it. It goes along with another expression "not a hill worth dying on", which means you have very strong opinions about a topic that is not important enough to argue over in the first place.)
Some people were willing to die on any and every hill. No topic was too petty to argue strenuously over and potentially risk the common peace and longstanding friendships over. Possibly the most contentious of all topics were calendar-related. I cringe just thinking about it. What a small thing to argue about so strenuously.

Take a look around at all of the Armstrongist splinter churches. Hundreds of them! Why are there so many? Some are in places where a small, isolated church is just how it has to be. Most, however, only exist due to church splits. One group of egos couldn't abide another opinion. Among the worst of all is the Philadelphia Church of God, where they do things almost identically to every other splinter church yet they frequently ridicule and condemn the other splinter churches and forbid their members from having any contact with outsiders - even if those outsiders are close family relations who attend another splinter. These splinter churches do almost everything identically. If two churches are 99% identical, why are there two? Because that's the Armstrongist way, that's why. A mother not talking to her daughter because of a disagreement over calendar dates, does that sound godly to you? Not to me! Yet, that's how it goes.
And it gets worse. There are the many, many times I've witnessed Armstrongists purposefully distorting the positions of mainstream Christianity. We have articles on this (for example "Primer To The Trinity Doctrine". "Primer to the Quartodeciman Controversy", and "Rome's Challenge"). There is no honor in straw man arguments. To not only misunderstand someone's position but to purposefully misunderstand it in order to distort it? Not good!
It gets much worse yet. The Armstrongist vs Traditional Christian disagreements don't even need to be real. I've watched people make things up whole cloth just so they could find some way to condemn someone they disagree with. I personally have been accused of all sorts of outlandish things over the years. Under normal circumstances we have a word for that: lying. Some people are simply too busy Sabbathing to bother with the Commandment against bearing false witness. Not godly!

These are the exact opposite of the approach I read online recently.

The strangest part of this is, there are several things mainstream Christians believe which are the same as Armstrongism. Want an example? I've given some in the past, but I will repeat one. Take the name "Church of God" for one example. In Armstrongism past and present, it is preached the one true church must have the one true name, and that name is "Church of God" - hence the names Worldwide Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, Church of God International, etc etc. (For reference, see "The WorldWide News", August 25, 1986, p. 5. column 2, paragraph 1.) Yet, none other than the Catholic Church has called itself the Church of God since the earliest times. There are at least four references in the very Catechism of the Catholic Church where the Catholic Church refers to itself as Church of God (see Catechism of the Catholic Church on usccb.cld.bz, and search for the exact phrase Church of God.) The Catholic Church calls itself Church of God. Armstrongist splinter churches usually call themselves Church of God. Same! Is it the one true name then? It can't be, if your goal is to use it to distinguish yourself. Yet, there the Armstrongist churches go, calling themselves Church of God as if they are the only ones, blissfully ignorant of what others believe because they willfully refuse to know what others actually believe.

I prefer the approach I recently read online. I prefer trying to understand those I disagree with. It's so much more civilized. How can anyone possibly claim to be an honest person if they cannot be honest with something they disagree with? How do you even know you disagree with someone if you don't really know what they believe? If they're wrong, they're wrong. But if they're right, they're right. Anything else is just self-delusion. Or worse - self righteousness.
Doing your best to accurately represent someone's position seems to be the only reasonable way. It seems to be the godly way.

(MAT. 5: 43-48) 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

It seems to me people distort things they disagree with out of fear. Don't be afraid. The truth can take care of itself. 

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

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

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

Jesus Was Not Against The Law

In my last post, I ranted a bit about how Jesus was not against religion. Jesus opposed the corruption of good religion by bad hearts. The problem - and the solution - is in the heart.
I said in that article:

"When Jesus healed on the Sabbath, what did the leadership do? Condemned the healer and the healed. And for what? The law was love and mercy. Jesus was practicing love and mercy - the weightier matters of the law. So, what was wrong? Their hard, merciless, pitiless, loveless hearts."

Today, I want to expand on that a bit, because:

Jesus. Was. Not. Against. The. Law.

There is a perpetual debate in the Adventist/Armstrongist spheres surrounding this question: did Jesus break the Sabbath law? 
On one side of the debate are the Sabbatarian legalists. They say Jesus never broke the Sabbath law because He was perfect and blameless and loved the law and kept it immaculately, and we must all do the same. 𝄞 "O, how love I thy law! It is ever with me! I have more understanding than the ancients of old....." ♪
On the other side of the debate are the grace-based formers. They say Jesus broke the Sabbath and was Lord of it and used His authority to change the law and dismiss it.
Which is right? In my personal and occasionally even humble opinion - neither. Both of these two positions miss something important that I want to dive into today. These two are not the only options. I am throwing in with option 3.

Was Jesus sinless? YES!
Did Jesus break the law? YES!
...and no.

DEFINITELY! BUT NOT REALLY

So, if Jesus was sinless (and He was), how can I say He broke the law? For the legalist team, breaking the law is the very definition of sin. (We have articles on that.) Is it possible to break a law and not be a lawbreaker? A contradiction? No.

Jesus explained it Himself. You can read it in Matthew 12 or Mark 2.
For some background, Jesus and the disciples were walking through the fields on the Sabbath. They were hungry. So, they picked grain and ate it. The Pharisees accused them of lawbreaking.
Did Jesus break the Sabbath law? YES! ...but not really.

This is not some sleight of hand I'm doing here. There is a critical distinction being made.

What they were doing did violate the letter of the Sabbath law. From the very first mention of the Sabbath in Exodus 16, it was explained that a Jew may not go out and gather food on the Sabbath. This is primary stuff. Sabbath 101.
This is just one instance, don't forget. Jesus also did other things on the Sabbath. Please do read them for yourselves.

Some explain this away by saying Jesus is never said to have gathered the wheat Himself, or Jesus didn't carry the burden Himself, or whatever else happened on the Sabbath it wasn't really Jesus doing it. But that dodges the fact that He was responsible none the less because He was the leader of the disciples and because He told people what to do. When the leaders accused Jesus of working on the Sabbath, He did not deny it. His response was, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” (JON. 5: 17).

A law was broken. Jesus was complicit. So, how do we get from here to sinlessness? We have the 'definitely' part, now what is the path to the 'not really'?

Before we proceed, I want to pause so you can imagine the being we are discussing here. Jesus is the visible Yahweh; a member of the Godhead, God the Son. The law was given by Him to Moses. (He would no doubt say the law is from His Father, and that is true, but He and His Father are one.) The God being that became the man Jesus helped craft the law. He knew the law. The law pointed to Him. It comes from His godly nature. He knew every nuance of it, far better than any human mind could.
Now we can move on.

ABOVE THE LAW

The key to understanding is hidden in Jesus' defense.

Jesus Himself never once says, "Hey! I didn't do what you're accusing Me of." He accepted responsibility. But it was done for a reason. A very important reason. You see, He wasn't against the law here at all. He was very much for it! Exactly like with religion, He was against the people who were twisting the law into a burden for man and God. He was witnessing against His accusers. He set them up, and they fell right into it.
His defense was that even though He had broken the law, He was still guiltless.

Was it because He pardoned Himself? No.
Not declared innocent for no reason. He made a defense.
Was it because He was simply above the law? No.
Not guiltless because He was above the law. He was born a Jewish man during the Old Covenant period and subjected Himself to it. He is the lawgiver, no doubt. He even went so far as to openly admit that He is Lord of the Sabbath. But being beyond the law was not His defense.
Was it because He just changed the law? No.
Not guiltless because the law suddenly changed. Oh, it could have been. In Mark 7: 19, Jesus declared all foods clean (and yes, that part of the sentence has strong manuscript evidence that it does indeed belong in the Bible - but that is for another day), so Jesus could have just declared a change in the Sabbath law had He wanted to. Yet, He did not.
So, if He didn't just dismiss the accusations, what was it?

Let's return to that confrontation with the Pharisees, after the disciples plucked and ate the wheat, and see His defense for ourselves.

(MAT. 12: 3-7) 3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? 6 Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. 7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.

Jesus did not appeal to His own authority -- He appealed to the Torah!
He appealed to the law to defend Himself from the accusation of breaking the law.
The law was broken, sure enough, but He and His followers were guiltless for it. How can one be guilty and guiltless? For the exact same reason as David and as the priesthood. They broke the law and were guiltless.
Because the weightier matters of the law are mercy and love!

This is the very same thing Paul was saying in Romans 2. A Gentile, though he breaks the letter of the law, fulfills the law nevertheless.

Jesus did not appeal to being above the law Himself, nor did He change or even dismiss the law, but explained the plain and simple truth that one part of the law was above another part. To put it into a phrase: the law is above the law.

LAW VS LAW

I will spell it out for you as plainly as I am able.
The law is not perfectly ridged. Necessity factors in. Though all the law is God-given and equal, some laws outweigh others in practical application, and the concepts of mercy and love are the most important and most weighty in all the law. If one part of the law (do not harvest) is in conflict with another part of the law (the value of life), then the mercy outweighs the prohibition.

Perhaps there is someone out there who does not think there can possibly be a conflict in the law. How can you think that when Jesus gave two examples (David and the priests)? But let's pause to review that.
I will give you two very basic verses and I ask you to think of any possible way they could be in conflict with one another:
(LEV. 23: 3) Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work on it; it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings. [Prohibition - do not, or else.]
(JAS. 4: 17) Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin. [Obligation - do, or else.]

Did James make an exception in his obligation? No. Did he say "except on the Sabbath"? No. So, not only is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath, it is a sin not to do good that ought to be done even on a Sabbath day.
But what if that obligation conflicts with the prohibition? I have, in my own life, witnessed many people struggle with this - one choosing to follow the prohibition and another choosing the obligation. This is what the Pharisees and Jesus were debating. Jesus broke the prohibition part of the law, because in His view the prohibition was overruled by the obligation. The end result was He was guiltless under the law.

It's not like He did it flippantly. Jesus didn't take the disciples to paint a house on the Sabbath. Real necessity factored in.

Let's see that again.

(MAT. 12: 11-12) 11 Then He said to them, “What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? 12 Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

Do you see how Jesus is appealing to the superiority of the laws of mercy and love over the prohibitions of the Sabbath? Even a sheep is of more value than the Sabbath prohibitions. A sheep! But a sheep has life, does it not? And life has value.

Jesus knew and understood the law. The Pharisees knew the law but did not fully understand it. Jesus was not against the law. Jesus was for the law. As they accused Him of sin for healing on the Sabbath, He accused them of sin for lovelessness. He was not being lawless because what He was doing was good, and doing good is lawful.

MERCY TRIUMPHS

Was Jesus getting rid of the Sabbath? No! Was He changing it? No!

It isn't that Jesus was against one part of the law (the Sabbath) and for another part (mercy). He was for all of it. It's not that He was throwing one part away and retaining another part. He knew the law and had His priorities straight. The Pharisees did not. A confrontation was centuries in the making with the religious leadership over their loveless, merciless, pitiless, inflexible hearts, and it was about time to have it out.

(MAT. 23: 16-24) 16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.’ 17 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold? 18 And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.’ 19 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 20 Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. 21 He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. 24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

Do you see Jesus' case against His accusers? He wasn't abandoning the law - they were! They were putting the lesser far above the greater and abandoning the greater. His defense for Himself was that He had put the greater above the lesser and satisfied both. As it should be. Love fulfills the law.

The leaders were, as we say, "majoring in the minors." The correct approach is directly the opposite. Jesus knew this. He instigated this with the Pharisees quite intentionally. They fell for it each time. They condemned Him each time. Yet He, having the correct approach, was guiltless before God. He broke the law, but He was not guilty for breaking the law because what He did was lawful. Same as King David. Same as the priesthood.

This is no contradiction, dear reader. This is the same way you are saved. When you who sin, perhaps even daily, have your sins laid on Him and He, who was blameless and upright to perfection, hands you His righteousness in return, how does He do this? By applying the notion that mercy is more important.

(JAS. 2: 12-13) 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

CONCLUSION

Did Jesus break the law? Yes. ...and no.

Jesus was not against the law. He gave the law. He did not ignore the law simply because He was in authority over it. He was born subject to the law. Jesus was very much in favor of the law. All of the law. He did not change the law by fiat. He fulfilled the law. Perfectly. In its spirit and intent. He did what Israel would/could not do. Even though Jesus was for the law, He was for a correct approach to the law. Justice and mercy and faith and love are paramount! All else comes second.

(MAT. 22: 36-40) 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

And then, when He had fulfilled it all, He died. This ended the Old Covenant and dissolved its terms. We have several articles to help unpack this. (Might I suggest "Are The Ten Commandments Removed?")

Did Jesus break the law? Yes. And He was sinless for it. Indeed, His violation was entirely lawful. Because He sought the weightier matters first. It is lawful to do good, even on the Sabbath.

Exactly like with my last post, the problem - and the solution - is in the heart.

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

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

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