The Road To Sabbatarianism - part II

In my last post, we talked about what, in my personal experience, are the top things which I've seen over the years that lead a person into Sabbatarianism. We saw the road to Sabbatarianism is paved with:

• Insufficient information,
• Misunderstanding who Jesus is,
• Misunderstanding the two Covenants, and
• Misunderstanding the singular nature of the body of laws. 

Today, I would like to continue on.

Not Properly Understanding To Whom The Bible Was Written

Some people say, "Look what the Lord says to us," as they turn to Leviticus. Well, I have some bad news for you. The Lord didn't say that to us. He said that to ancient Israel. If you hear someone say the Old Testament was written to "us", then you have my permission to walk away from that person, because they do not yet understand as they should in order to teach others.

Don't get me wrong here. I am not saying to walk away from the Old Testament, or that there's no value there for us. Oh, there's a ton of value! But it wasn't wasn't to us. The very first step on the road to Sabbatarianism is overlooking this distinction; misunderstanding the audience; believing that God wants us to do a thing that He commanded someone else to do.

The Old Testament was not written to us; it was written for us. Big difference.

How so, you ask? We are like people overhearing a conversation and receiving benefit from it, but we were not part of the conversation. Many times, as Jesus preached, He would engage in conversations with specific people, such as scribes and pharisees for example, but He would do it in a very public fashion. Everyone there could witness the interaction, but He wasn't speaking to everyone there. He was speaking to the scribes and Pharisees. He kept those side conversations public for everyone there.
And so it is with the Old Testament. It was written to the Jews. Ancient Jews. In the Middle East. But it contains wisdom and principals that are good for us all.

Imagine you visit a hospital. While there, you overhear a doctor telling a patient about certain medicines to take and a health regimen to follow in order to lower their blood pressure. Should you run to the pharmacy and get those medicines too? No. The doctor was not speaking to you. Those medicines might actually harm you. You may learn a thing or two about lowering your blood pressure, which is definitely good, but that conversation did not include you.
Imagine you are in the audience at a trial. A person accused of a crime stands before a judge. The judge declares the person guilty and sentences them to 5 weeks of community service. Was the judge speaking to "us"? No. Must we all do community service? No. The judge was speaking to someone specific. Yet, court rooms have audience sections for a reason. It is good to witness such things and learn from them.

Sabbatarians will emphasize, "This is what the CREATOR said!" (A woman said this very thing to me last week. All caps.) This is a bit of manipulation. An attempt to get you to feel like you are somehow brazenly defying Almighty God if you don't think as they do. Yes, the Creator said these things, but to whom? Not to "us"!
What would you think if a person said to you, "Look what the CREATOR says to us in Ezekiel 4: 5"? Would you lie on your side for 390 days? No? Why not? Those are God's words aren't they? Because you know that wasn't said to you. Then why do you think it's any different when you read what God said to Israel? That wasn't to you, either.
There is a ton of good benefit in reading Exodus. For one thing, you can learn a lot about Jesus in there. But when was the last time you put blood on your door posts? When was the last time you waded into the Red Sea? Well, God said that to "us", didn't He? Of course He didn't! Everyone knows He didn't. The people to whom He said those things went and did those things, and it was written down years later for our benefit.
Sabbatarian groups like to throw away huge tracts of the indivisible law by saying things like, "Some laws were ceremonial and some were national laws, and all of those were for Israel only." (Recall the indivisible nature of the law.) Hey! Wait just a minute. What happened to, "Look what the Lord says to us"? So, I am to believe the CREATOR spoke 2/3 of the law to Israel only but the last 1/3 directly to me? Of course He didn't. It was all to Israel. None of it was to me. Everyone involved knows the law was not written to "us". That only changes when someone finds a law they want other people to follow.

Now do you understand what I meant when I said, "The Old Testament was not written to us; it was written for us,"? It was all recorded for our edification. There is a ton of benefit in reading and studying the law. Read it and be edified! But we cross the line when we start thinking it was commanded directly to us. This ties in with the last post, when we talked about the Covenants.

The road to Sabbatarianism always involves a degree of not understanding to whom the Bible was written; inserting "us" and "me" where they do not belong.

Not Properly Understanding the Sabbath

I'm not going to beat around the bush here --- as I said in the last post, there IS a Sabbath in the New Covenant, and that Sabbath is Jesus Christ.

If you cannot accept that our Sabbath rest is not a day, and righteousness does not come from sitting idly on our hands one day in seven, but it is Jesus who gives true rest for our very souls, every day, then perhaps understanding Jesus better is what you need. He's not just the Son, or the Savior, or the Messiah, or King, or High Priest, or Shepherd, or Seed, or Root, or Vine, or Branch, or Servant, or Bread, or Son of Man, or Second Adam, or true Israel, or Way and Truth and Life, or Logos, or Alpha and Omega, or Passover Lamb, or Wave Sheaf, but He is our Sabbath, too. Giving us rest. He can be all these things.

(MAT. 11: 28) Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Did you notice He was alluding to Exodus 33; 14 there? See! Value in there for us, even though it wasn't written to us. He said the law and prophets pointed to Him (MAT. 5: 17; JON. 5: 46; LUK. 24: 25-27). So, why not this law? Any law but this!

Some Sabbatarian groups heap praise on the Sabbath. Of course they do! It's their identity. It's their raison d’être. Without the Sabbath, why even have a church? They call it "the sign of the Covenant", for example. But where do they get this? From the Old Covenant. Once again, we see a misunderstanding of the Covenants. But what do we see when we read about the Sabbath in the New Testament? Hebrews 3: 11-19 and 4: 1-10 are blatant and clear that the Sabbath never gave rest, and another rest was spoken of. We enter that promised rest by faith in Jesus. (For more, see "The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4").

That prohibition against work refers to regularly assigned work, by the way. It's not like Israel could do nothing at all on Sabbath. "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working," Jesus said (JON. 5: 16-17). Jesus tried to explain how it is perfectly acceptable to do good on the Sabbath (MAT. 12: 12). The Pharisees simply would not listen.

Sabbatarianism is almost defined by going to church on the Sabbath. That is, however, not what the Fourth Commandment says. All of this "Saturday vs Sunday" stuff is entirely man-made and beside the point. If you hear someone tell you they keep the Fourth Commandment by going to church, you can feel free to respond, "The Sabbath is not about going to church."

Going to synagogue on Sabbath developed in the Second Temple period. It was the Pharisees who started the synagogues and going there on Sabbath. Nowhere in the Bible is there a law that demands going to church (or synagogue) on Sabbath. It just says, in short, 1) remember to keep it holy, and 2) not to work. It says as much about going to church on Saturday as it does about going to Chipotle on Tuesday. The thing Sabbatarians emphasize most is not really even part of it. It would be difficult to find a more fundamental misunderstanding.

Notice I did not say it is wrong to go to church on Sabbath. I simply said it is not part of the Old Covenant law. How much less, then, is it part of the New Covenant law.

The road to Sabbatarianism always involves not understanding the Sabbath rest as it is in the New Covenant. And, so it seems, also misunderstanding it as it was in the Old Covenant as well.

CONCLUSION

I know I said I would talk more about righteousness today, but it turned out that I am simply unable to write anything compact enough to fit here. (Luc and Seeker always did call me the wordsmith. Rightfully.) So, I am forced to do one more post.

Today, we saw how the road to Sabbatarianism is paved with:

• Misunderstanding to whom the Bible was written, and
• Misunderstanding the very Sabbath itself.

In my next post, God willing, we will finish this list.

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

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

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

The Road To Sabbatarianism - part I

Today I want to talk about what, in my personal experience, are the top things which I've seen over the years that lead a person into Sabbatarianism. No one just wakes up a Sabbatarian one fine day. It's a path; a path built on many simple mistakes. I'd like to go over some of the bigger mistakes.

Some people are born into it. This article isn't about that. That has its own challenges. Also, some just come along for the ride then blend in. Perhaps a wife just comes along with her husband and is content to go wherever her family goes. This article isn't about that, either.
This is an article about the people (like me) who "studied" themselves into the system. Hopefully, it will also help those with well-meaning family or friends who are trying to convince them to join.

Insufficient Information

When I was a member of the Armstrongist system, we would say things like, "I just read my Bible." That's true only to a degree. And ironically, it's part of the issue. We just assumed we were going to read without guidance and whatever thoughts popped into our heads were going to be correct. It's the quality of our reading that I question. We didn't understand critical but less than obvious ideas. We didn't speak Hebrew. We didn't understand ancient Israel. We weren't trained theologians or historians. We didn't even consult those types of resources. We actively rejected any ideas but our own, which meant we rejected most of the documents that might make sense of things for us. We didn't even know how to use a Strong's Concordance correctly. We didn't know what we didn't know. Some even purposefully came to unorthodox conclusions, simply to be different. So, when we "just read our Bibles" we did not have what we needed to correctly understand what we were reading. Much of the time we rejected any challenge to our understanding. And so, we unsurprisingly came to incorrect conclusions. Then, we went out searching for others who would give us affirmation.

Now, I realize that sounds a bit harsh, but it's true. At least it is for most of us.

We concluded things like, the Ten Commandments are our most important guides for righteousness, and the Sabbath is one of the Ten, and the Bible says the Sabbath is on Saturday, therefore the seventh day Sabbath is necessary for righteousness. Logical enough! Based on a false premise about the law, but I can at least understand it. Back in the day, there was a Ten Commandments on practically every wall. Many Christians do see the Ten as important guides for righteousness. Few realize the conundrum with that fourth Commandment. The Old Testament is pretty clear the Sabbath was the seventh day, not the first. It was no huge leap to ask, "Why do you put that on your wall then keep all but one?"
Armed with our new realization, we set off to find others who believed this, too. Welcome to Sabbatarianism!

But get this.
Once you join, you are told you are not qualified to understand things on your own, there's so much more for you to learn, and you must agree with all the leadership's conclusions or you're a rebel and you'll be kicked right back out again. What it shows is that everyone admits new members do not know what they ought.

My point is, we were making life-altering decisions with a fraction of the information we needed.

We made huge decisions without really taking the time to fully understand the matter comprehensively enough to make a truly informed, life-altering decision in the first place. We didn't really know the history, or the theology, or the counter-arguments, or what a Covenant is, or even what the Sabbath really is. Yet, there we go, rushing off to make big changes with the barest of information. "The Sabbath day was Saturday? I'm gonna upend my life!"

I have to hand it to Herbert Armstrong. At least he claims to have tried to disprove Sabbatarianism first before he joined. He failed because ... he didn't have enough information to challenge it. He went about it all wrong. I don't think it was wise to just assume all the answers were in the Eugene, Oregon local library. He was pretty much an unchurched Quaker. Quakers aren't known for the richness and depth of their theology. Going to a Quaker church leader would probably not have helped, and he didn't go to another church's leadership, so, unfortunately, he probably felt he did not have many options.

Sadly, I do not think Armstrong would have found much help if he had gone to a church leader. It's a crying shame so few in mainstream Christianity are equipped properly to answer honest questions from a person who is thinking of leaving for a Sabbatarian group. It's a shame they do not prepare their flocks. I joined Armstrongism after asking several people what I thought were simple questions, but the responses I got were nowhere near satisfactory. Good thing you have your friends here at As Bereans Did to help you out.

The road to Sabbatarianism has many gaps and pot holes where knowledge should be.

Not Properly Understanding Jesus

This is what I consider to be the most important thing on the road to Sabbatarianism. As Christians, if who Jesus is and what Jesus did is not at the center of focus throughout our understanding of the Bible, then we will never properly understand what's going on.

Oddly, most Sabbatarian groups minimize Jesus. I think they have to or their opposition to mainstream Christianity falls apart.

So as to avoid a very long and complicated treatise that could last until He returns, let's just narrow it down to one critical point we need here: Jesus is the God with whom Moses spoke and with whom Israel ratified the Old Covenant at Sinai.

Oddly, most Sabbatarian groups accept this. The problem is, they don't see it through to its logical conclusion. We'll see a few examples as we go along. The next section has a big one.

The road to Sabbatarianism always involves misunderstanding Jesus in one way or the other. Sometimes purposefully.

Not Properly Understanding Covenants

I've hammered away at this in article after article, so I will skim this time. Understand these points: the Old Covenant was a contract between God and Israel, and the laws were the terms of that contract. The logical conclusion of Jesus being the God with whom Israel ratified the Old Covenant at Sinai is - the entire contract was dissolved upon Jesus' death. When a contract ends, the terms end. The contract and its terms are one. The Ten Commandments are the base and foundation of the Old Covenant (for more, read "If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments").

(HEB. 8: 13) In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

There is no Old Covenant anymore. It was replaced. The New Covenant is not like the Old (JER. 31: 31-32). It is not a continuation of the Old. It is not a reiteration of the Old. The Old is gone and the New has come in.
It's not as if there are no similarities whatsoever, since the basis of both covenants is the loving nature of God - the spirit of the law remains (its reasons, its motivations) - but the Covenants are quite a bit different. Different parties, different terms, and different promises. But more importantly, they are two individual, distinct covenants. Nothing "comes forward" from the Old into the New. Everything in the Old is gone. If something from the Old is also in the New (and there are many such things), then it is only similar to what was in the Old. Identical, perhaps, but not one and the same. You must understand we are talking about two different agreements. Even if a million contracts have the same terms, it does not mean those terms have leaped from one contract into the other.

Imagine I have two children. One day, I tell one child to go to the store and get eggs. Several days later, I tell the other child the exact same thing. Does that mean they are one and the same command, jumped from child to child? No. Did my instructions "come forward"? No. I told both to go buy eggs, but they are two separate instructions, given to two different children on two different days. Would it be reasonable for me to be angry with my second child, saying, "I told your sibling several days ago to buy eggs. Why didn't you do it?" No. That would be ridiculous.
Or, imagine I pay off a car loan. Then, at some point in the future I find myself in need of another car. When I get the new loan, I see both required me to make payments no later than the fifteenth of the month or I incur a late fee. Isn't that odd! Both loans have the same term. Does that mean the two loans are really one loan? No. Does that mean they are one and the same term that "came forward" into the new loan? No. They are not one and the same, they are only similar. Do the terms of the first loan continue into the second loan unless otherwise stated? No. All terms from the first loan are gone. What if I treat the second loan like the first and pay the amount required in the first loan. Would the bank praise me for obeying them like this? No. That would be ridiculous.
And so it is with the two Great Covenants.

Sabbatarians have many arguments which attempt to partially resurrect the Old Covenant. A popular one is, "Jesus did these things, and He is our example, so we should do them, too." Except Jesus was born a Jew during the Old Covenant period. He was born under that contract and its terms. He subjected Himself to it because He is the True Israel. He kept the law perfectly. He didn't set it aside or nullify it or simply dismiss it in any away. He accomplished it. All of it. Blamelessly. Then He died. And in dying, He ended it. We don't have to do what He did because He lived in a different Covenant than we are in now.

You will find all of the elements of the Old Covenant are also in the New Covenant ...but with significant changes.
Why aren't sacrifice and offering laws necessary in the New Covenant? Because Jesus provided one sacrifice for all - a sacrifice that actually does take away sins. So, the New Covenant does not have those things. The sacrifices and offerings and tithes of the New Covenant are our prayers and charity. Why aren't ceremonial cleanliness laws and meats laws necessary in the New Covenant? Because you have been washed clean by Jesus' sacrifice. Once and for all time. With real cleanliness, there is no further need for ceremony to simulate cleanliness. Not only are you able to occupy sacred space, but the curtain preventing access to the Holy of Holies is torn down. Direct access to God! So, the New Covenant does not have those things. The cleanliness of the New Covenant is our faith and repentance. Why aren't the Levitical priesthood and various ritual laws necessary in the New Covenant? Because Jesus is the Hight Priest of a new priesthood. So, the New Covenant does not have those things. The High Priest and Temple of the New Covenant is Jesus Christ Himself. Why isn't the Sabbath day law necessary in the New Covenant? Because He has given us rest. A true rest. So, the New Covenant does not have those things. The Sabbath of the New Covenant is Jesus, and our rest in Him.
If you properly understand who Jesus is and what He did, then you will understand all of these things. 

Do you see how the Covenants are similar but are not the same?

The road to Sabbatarianism always involves confusing the two Great Covenants. There is no Old Covenant any longer. There is only the New Covenant.

Not Properly Understanding The Entire Law Is A Single, Indivisible Whole

Sabbatarians insist they keep the law, but in reality they only keep about 2% of the law. If that. The Jews have identified 613 laws in the Covenant, not 10, and they are all equally the spoken commands of God (to the Jews). But all Sabbatarian groups ignore that and make their own list of laws to keep. James says if you break one [of the 613], you break them all (JAS. 2: 10). We used to quote that verse back in my Armstrong splinter group. But, did James say, "If you've broken one of the laws your church feels is necessary"? No. Did James say, "but you can ignore the rest"? No. Yet that's precisely how most groups treat it. They quote this verse in order to justify violating it. Most Sabbatarians never make the connection here. They are given a list by their church, and never come to realize James didn't have that list. James was born in the Old Covenant period and lived while the Temple yet stood. When he said "laws" he meant all 613. While the Sabbatarian mind thinks 2% of the law, James' had 100% in mind.

The law is a singular body. One indivisible whole. The road to Sabbatarianism often starts with, "I should be keeping ten laws, not nine." After a while, you learn there are a few more tossed in. Maybe it's meats laws, maybe it's tithes. But that fails to grasp the singular nature of the body of the law. One group keeping 9 laws and another group keeping 90 laws have equally failed at keeping them all. Sabbatarians treat the law as if God gave us a recipe with 10 steps, and most people skip step 4. But that's not at all how it works. God gave ancient Israel a recipe (if you will) with 613 steps, and everyone is skipping steps 11 through 613. If you skip out on any one of the 613, then you've skipped them all. If you aren't keeping all the law, then you aren't keeping the law at all.

Imagine you travel to a foreign country. When you arrive, they hand you a booklet of the laws they expect you to observe while you're there. Perhaps you respond to them, "Tell ya what. I am going to keep all the ones on page 10 ...most of the time." Do you suppose they will congratulate you for your good work? No. Keep them all or you're a criminal. Now, imagine you return home with that booklet and start telling others how they must follow those laws, too. Do they really have to? No. Those laws do not apply in your country and never have.

The law is a singular whole. 100% of the law applies to the people under the law (the people bound to the law by Covenant); 0% of the law applies to everyone else (the people not in that Covenant). It's all or nothing. This is only a problem for people who think the Old Covenant law is our path to righteous behavior. We'll get to that in the next post.

The road to Sabbatarianism always involves misunderstanding the singular, whole, indivisible nature of the body of law. Correcting the Sabbath law does nothing while you ignore the vast majority of other laws.

CONCLUSION

I think that's enough for now. We will see more in the next post.

Today, we saw how the road to Sabbatarianism is paved with:

• Insufficient information
• Misunderstanding who Jesus is,
• Misunderstanding the two Covenants,
• Misunderstanding the singular nature of the body of laws.

In my next post, God willing, we will continue this list.

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

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

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