The Law Is Written On Our Hearts - Part II

God promised to write the law on our hearts. Does that mean we will all keep the Old Covenant law? The whole law? If that is so, then why do we see something very different being practiced? Does modern Sabbatarianism hold the correct solution to this prophecy?

---

We are looking into the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, where the law is written on our hearts. In the previous post, we walked through the more legalist approach taken in some modern, mainly Sabbatarian, church groups. We found there are many private interpretations of  what "the law" means, and all are but a fraction of the whole law. These lists do not resemble what Ezekiel and Jeremiah would recognize as the law. So we ask, do several competing partial lists, hand picked and edited, that change over time, really solve the issue and fulfill the prophecy?

Today, we will investigate the second opinion. As a refresher, that was:
Opinion 2) The Old Covenant law is gone but the spirit of the law remains, the whole law is fulfilled in faith and love, and the Holy Spirit leads us in it.

Let's just be fair here - mainstream Christianity sounds just as absurd to a Sabbatarian as Sabbatarianism does to a mainstream Christian. What started Sabbatarianism in the first place? In Catholicism, the Ten Commandments are required, but not really the fourth. Protestants continued this, but then started asking, "Why not the fourth Commandment?" voilà! Sabbatarianism. The whole thing was started by competing lists. Are there no competing ideas in mainstream Christianity like there are in Sabbatarianism? With 40,000+ denominations in the world, undeniably, there are. We traded one Pope for a billion Popes.

Whatever I said about the Sabbatarians in the last post, you can pretty much say the same thing about most mainstream Christianity. The field is ripe for "so's your old man" logical fallacies.

So, what on earth is the answer to this puzzle??

With issues like this, it is wise to start at the start. Let's start with the most fundamental thing I can think of.

LEGALLY DONE

If even so much as one law is removed, any whatsoever, then we need to ask HOW was that law removed in the first place. This needs to be answered because if you believe Jesus is who He said He is, then this affects you. This isn't an opinion 1 vs opinion 2 thing. It's all of us.

I often see people mention, "I looked but don't see where [insert law here] was removed. Where was it removed?" A valid question. Many can see in Hebrews where the priesthood had changed. But what about other laws, like the prohibition against mixed fabrics? How are they removed? Before Christ, there was the Levitical Priesthood. After Christ, there was not. What happened? The Bible doesn't say? No, it does say. It says: the Christ event.

But saying "the Christ event" isn't good enough for this. It's too broad. We need to know what about the Christ event, specifically.

Let's get one thing absolutely straight. Jesus did not simply abolish the law by decree. If you go looking for, "I, Jesus of Nazareth, hereby declare Tzitzit removed," you're not going to find that. He did not do it one law at a time. There was no, "This law stays, this law goes, this group stays, this group goes." This is the place where Matthew 5:17-18 comes in.

Instead, Jesus Christ - the very One who made the Covenant with Israel at Sinai (1 Cor. 10:4; Jude 5) - did something far more profound: First He kept the covenant blamelessly, to fulfill Israel's end of the deal, then He died and rose again.
This is the important part of the Christ event we must zoom in on -- when He died, that Old Covenant dissolved completely. Nothing could change until everything changed.

Gone. Abolished. Abrogated. Passed away. In Part I, I quoted a person who said, "What is dissolved, abolished, decays, grows old, fades away was the sacrificial system." Negative. Not the ceremonial law only. It was the entire Covenant.

Find, if you can, even one passage where the New Testament explains the change in the law by any other means than the replacing of the Old Covenant. You won't find one. (And no, I do not think Mark 17: 9 counts.)
You can repeat "only the ceremonial law is gone" all you like. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how that is possible. The New Testament never portrays God as editing the Sinai Covenant line by line. It consistently explains the change by pointing to the end of the Old Covenant and the arrival of the New. Even in Hebrews 8! And when did that happen? At His death. When did the curtain tear in half? People think only the ceremonial law is gone because that is what they see in Hebrews 7-8, but how does Hebrews explain the means for removing the ceremonial law? By removal of the entire covenant! Was the Covenant merely the priesthood (DEU. 4:13)? No.

The question now changes from, "how was the law removed?" to, "how can any law survive this?"

Once the contract ends, all the terms end. The answer is clear: No Old Covenant law survived.

Sabbatarianism simply declares, "All laws survive unless otherwise stated." But how is that possible? Name one contract that works this way. Do you have any idea how many laws were never 'otherwise stated', which means they survive? See part I for those numbers.

Once agreed to, a contract cannot be changed (GAL. 3:15). Yet, things have changed. They have, or else Jesus Christ is not your High Priest, the Jews and Gentiles are not one, those laws that your list doesn't include are still required, there is no Spiritual Israel, and all Gentiles are not heirs but still strangers. These are not merely ceremonial points. Since things have changed, then we know the contract changed.

There are three options for altering a contract.

1. You may sign a new contract that amends but does not replace the first. The New Covenant is not the New Addendum. If it were, this would need to be clearly stated somewhere. It isn't.
2. You may agree to a new contract that replaces the first. The New Covenant has replaced the Old entirely. New terms, new promises, new parties. The Old is dead. This is clearly stated in the New Testament (HEB. 8:6-7, 13; II. COR. 3:7; GAL. 4:21-31).
3. You may naturally terminate the contract. This is also clearly stated. Death naturally terminates a contract. In Romans 6:1-4 & 7:1-6, and Galatians 2:19-20, and elsewhere, Paul tells us we have died in Christ. In dying with Christ, we are freed from the covenant.

We have not just one escape but two.

None of this was done by simply declaring it so. All was done legally. Meticulously. Properly.
(For more, read "Confusing the Covenants".)

This is how any law at all was removed. But not just one law; the whole covenant! No Old Covenant law survives this. This shifts things from, "where does it say that law was removed," to, "where does it say that law is part of the New Covenant." And the weekly Sabbath was never said to be reintroduced in the New Covenant.

The same selection from Jeremiah which promises a law written on hearts also promises a New Covenant which is not like the Old. And that is exactly how the author of Hebrews treats it. No New Testament author appeals to Jeremiah 31 to justify law observance or to claim, "Nothing's different. Carry on as usual."

With the exception of some outliers, both opinions 1 and 2 believe the Old Covenant is gone. Both opinions must wrestle with this same problem. The Covenant cannot be gone and not gone at the same time. It cannot be 100% replaced and only 5/6 replaced at the same time.

Now, I bet you are wondering how a law can be gone and written on our hearts at the same time.

THE SOLUTION

To say, "the letter of the law must be written on our hearts," is to say, "the ceremonial law including the Levitical Priesthood must be written on our hearts." They were laws, were they not? That is completely inconsistent with the belief that the letter of the law is written on our hearts but those particular laws are gone. (We touched on this in the last post) The answer is not in customized short-lists of laws, with some moral laws here and some ceremonial laws there; fulfilling a small fraction of the law but never all of it, yet claiming that's all of it. Where do Jeremiah and Ezekiel say, "some of the law"?

So, what is the solution?

I will put it to you bluntly and openly: the letter of the law is not written on our hearts; the spirit of the law is (ROM. 2:29; 7:6; II COR. 3:4-6).

Every New Testament author follows a singular theme. I will sum up the solution like this: fulfill all of the law through love and faith.

We've heard a great deal about this verse:

(MAT. 5:17) Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Very popular proof text. Frequently used. Top ten. Jesus was not going to solve this by simply tossing out laws (in other words, following opinion 1). He was going to keep Israel's end of the bargain. Yet, I find it odd that no one seems to quote the follow-up:

(MAT. 7:12) Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

From the Golden Rule to the greatest laws.

(MAT. 22: 37-40) 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.”

All the law and all the prophets. It is all summed up in two words: faith and love.

(JON. 13:34-35) 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.

(JON. 15:12-14,17) 12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. ... 17 These things I command you, that you love one another.

It's what John said: I John. 3:11,23 and II John 1:6.
It's what Peter said: I Peter 4:8.
It's what Paul said: Galatians 5:14 and I Timothy. 1:5.
It's what James said: James 2:8.
It's what Jude said: Jude 20-21.

If you love, then you fulfill the whole law. All of it. And the Prophets, too.  That is how the whole law is kept even when the letter of the law is gone. Paul calls it "the spirit of the law" (ROM. 7: 6). The intent. The real point.
The real point of tefillin was not to hang scripture on your forehead (DEU. 11:18).
The real point of circumcision was not to cut off your skin (ROM. 2: 9).
Seriously, Paul bluntly says you don't need the law to keep the spirit of the law (ROM. 2:14).

Find for me where the New Testament emphasizes the Sabbath in this way as it does faith and love. I'll save you the time, it doesn't. But love and faith are repeatedly offered as the solution.

Some will immediately think of Hebrews 4:9: "There remains therefore a rest for the people of God." But the context of Hebrews 4 is not that the promised rest is found in the weekly Sabbath. It literally says the opposite! Rather, the chapter repeatedly points to a rest entered into by faith in Christ. I've discussed that passage in more detail elsewhere. For now, it is enough to note that even here the emphasis falls on faith, not on preserving an Old Covenant ordinance.

One will no doubt say to me, "But 'love your neighbor' is straight from the law. The two great commandments were in the law." Yes, they were. But we do not love simply because Moses commanded it, and we would not stop loving simply because a covenant ended. The Bible never says, "Keep the law and you will fulfill love." It says the opposite: love fulfills the law.
That was Jesus' point, was it not? The law pointed to something greater than itself. Before Sinai there was God, and before there was any written code there was love, because God's very nature is love. Love and faith go straight to the ultimate source.
The Old Covenant did not create love and faith; it bore witness to it. The two great commandments are equally as valid in the New Covenant as they were in the Old not because they "came forward" but because love is a deep, eternal truth and faith is mandatory. That is why so many New Testament writers can say that love fulfills the law.

Can you say the same about tithes? No. Does avoiding shrimp cocktail fulfill the law? No. The Sabbath law doesn't even say "go to church on Saturday", so how can that fulfill anything at all?

If you have one law - no, let's say you have the entire category of moral law - then what do you have? Not the whole law. That's for certain. And as the law itself will attest, if we approach this by law but do not have the whole law, then we have nothing at all. But if we approach this by the spirit of the law - love and faith - then what does the New Testament consistently say we have? All the law and the prophets.

It's the only way.

(JON. 4:23-24) 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Finally, let's take a look at that new heart.

ABOUT THAT NEW HEART

I will give you a new heart.

What is a heart? Not your beating heart, but your emotional and inner self. What goes into and out from a heart? Is it not faith and love (I TIM. 1:5; I PET. 1:22)? And what did Ezekiel say about the heart?

(EZE 36: 26-27) 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 

What is a heart of stone? What is a heart of flesh? Is stone not about stubbornness and pride? Is flesh not about teachableness and humility?

So, we must ask, what does a new heart do for the old law? If this new heart is so capable of keeping the old law, then why do all lists only have at most 5/6 of the laws on them? And why is it that, even when 5/6 is all there is left, people still fail at it? Because that isn't the solution. It cheats. What is the new heart is capable of? Love. And what is love? All the law and all the prophets.

I know someone will say to me, "But I do have faith. We have to have faith and keep the law, too."

And to that I ask, have you heard nothing I've said? You don't keep the letter of the law. "Keeping" 1/6 of the law is not "keeping the law". But if you have faith and love, then you already have the whole law. I personally believe this to be true - that you will find you accidentally fulfill more of the law through your love and faith than you realize, and far more than you literally accomplish through "keeping" a customized set of laws.

(ROM. 3:31) Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

If even after all this you still want to keep some of the law, then I say do it. The Jewish converts kept the law, zealously. Observing a Sabbath isn't the problem. The problem is thinking it earns you anything with God, and that this partial law-keeping makes you superior to others who don't believe they have to follow along.

CONCLUSION

Even as some say, "The law is the same," they also say, "Most of the law is gone." Even as some say, "The law has not changed," they also say, "The law has changed significantly." Even as some say, "the ceremonial laws are gone," they retain some ceremonial laws and call them "moral". Not because they are moral, but because they made it onto the list. Laws are retained, laws are removed, laws are changed, and new laws are invented. To me, this is cheating.

What is the solution, then?

• Jesus is the law-keeper.
• Jesus is our righteousness.
• His righteousness comes to us by faith alone.
• Our laws are faith and love.
• Faith and love fulfill the intent of the entire law and the prophets.
• The Holy Spirit is sent to be our guide.
• If we are following the Holy Spirit, we will not be doing lawless things.

Faith and love and the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit - THAT is the solution. That is the law written on our hearts. That is us keeping His statues and judgments. Whatever you think is required above and beyond that is just window dressing.

(I COR. 13:13) And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Where is "law" in that list? Absent. Why? Because if you have faith and love then you've fulfilled the whole law. Hebrews 11 isn't the "law chapter". This is what Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah were talking about. This is what all the Apostles were talking about. This is what Jesus was talking about.

We started with two options:
Opinion 1) The Old Covenant law remains, but only some of it, and the Holy Spirit helps us keep it.
Opinion 2) The Old Covenant law is gone, but the spirit of the law remains, the whole law is fulfilled in faith and love, and the Holy Spirit leads us in it.

As for me, I'm going with Opinion 2.

For more, I suggest:

The Law (The Ten Commandments)
The Sabbath Rest of John 14
Is Ceremonial Law Removed?
Are the Ten Commandments Removed?
Confusing the Covenants
Why Not Keep Biblical Days?
Tithing - You're Doing It Wrong
Lawlessness and I John 3
Common Legalist Arguments - part 1
What Use Is The Old Law?
Old Covenant vs. New Covenant
The Road To Sabbatarianism - Part I
Paul's Use of Psalm 32 In Romans 4

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

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 Law Is Written On Our Hearts - Part I

God promised to write the law on our hearts. Does that mean we will all keep the Old Covenant law? The whole law? If that is so, then why do we see something very different being practiced? Does modern Sabbatarianism hold the correct solution to this prophecy?

---

(JER. 31: 33) But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

(EZE. 36: 26-27) 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

God said He would write the law on Israel's hearts and cause them to keep it. So, the natural question is - what does that mean? Some say it can only mean we must keep the Old Covenant law and go to church on Saturday. They say, "The issue of the New Covenant is not the removal of God's law but its internalization," and, "The New Covenant promise is not that God's law would be discarded." Others disagree. They say the Old Covenant is gone. But how can those who disagree claim the law is removed when it is supposed to be written on hearts and kept?
It's a reasonable question. We need to find a reasonable answer.

We basically have two options:
Opinion 1) The Old Covenant law remains, but only some of it, and the Holy Spirit helps us keep it.
Opinion 2) The Old Covenant law is gone, but the spirit of the law remains, the whole law is fulfilled in faith and love, and the Holy Spirit leads us in it.

Clearly, they cannot both be correct. Which of these is the New Covenant way?

I am not going to get deep in scripture and such today. I want to start by digging in to opinion #1 so we can see clearly how opinion #1 actually works. I think this is important.

THE WHOLE LAW?

First things first, we have to deal with a genuine problem affecting opinion 1: of all those who say the law is written on our hearts, practically no one thinks the whole law remains as written.

So many people make claims like, "The new covenant is still the same God's laws, only that they are written upon the tables of hearts of the true believers." That is a direct quote, copied and pasted. But is it correct? For all the times I see this kind of comment, I have yet to see anyone who really believes the law in the New Covenant is the same as the Old. Nevertheless, I see this kind of comment frequently.

If you are going to base your entire religious outlook on the claim that the law is eternal, from Genesis to Revelation, then you might want to consider living by that claim.       No one does.

I've asked many people if they keep all 613 laws, and the very first thing they do is start to explain how that isn't required.
There is one good point to mention. Some said to me, "Even Jesus didn't keep all 613. How could He keep the laws about the Kohanim and Levites?"
Believe it or not, I think this is a fair point. Let's grant it. Not even Jesus kept all 613 because not all 613 applied to every Jewish person. Quite true! But...
That does nothing to change the fact that the whole law was there. And if the law is the same, as is frequently claimed, then those laws are still there.

But more importantly for us now, all the whole law was in place when Jeremiah and Ezekiel wrote what they did. To the Prophets, "the law" is the whole body of law. But to modern Sabbatarians, that is not what "the law" means.

My usual response to this "we don't have to keep all 613 laws" point is to ask, "So, how many would you say you do keep, then?"
I have yet to get a response to this question.

What happened to "do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets" and "not one jot or one tittle" (MAT. 5: 17-18)? What happened to Romans 3: 31? What happened to all the other proof texts and common legalist arguments that I've used and that have been used to me to claim the law is still in effect? Gone.
In my last post, "Lawlessness and I John 3" we discussed how the Pharisees are accused of lawlessness for adding to the law, which takes away from the law. Here, people literally take away from the law, and they call that "keeping the law". How?

In other words, one thing is being said and another thing entirely is meant. It's a bait and switch.
I was specifically told, "The New Covenant promise is not that God's law would be discarded." No? Then why is that exactly what I see happening? And they do this even as they say, "God's law is eternal" (is it?) - and sing "O How Love I Thy Law" (do you?).

The exact number 613 was never the point. It merely helps to show how "the law" is not the same today as it was. The laws being "kept" are not the ones Jeremiah and Ezekiel knew. Far from it.

Vast swaths of law have been removed. Barely 3% remains. How can this be "the law"?

BITE-SIZED PORTIONS

So, "the law" is not the whole law. Then what is it? The definition changes from group to group. In some cases, it's the Ten Commandments only. Others add tithes and sometimes meats laws. Still others add holy days. Herbert Armstrong had his preaching credentials revoked by the COG7 for teaching more law than they thought was necessary. No two Sabbatarian groups seem to agree. This is no small thing!

Yet, they all have separated the law into three chunks: moral, ceremonial, and national. Not because the Bible makes these categories, mind you. It does not; they are entirely theological. Then, they've tossed out 2 of those categories: ceremonial and national. Gone. Right off the top. But to divide them up and toss some out actually violates the law. Is DEU. 4:2 written on our hearts, too?

This was said to me just the other day:

"The law is the terms of both Covenants. What is dissolved, abolished, decays, grows old, fades away was the sacrificial system. The Levitical laws of the priesthood, animal sacrifices, because the Messiah replaced them once and for all. These works where to fade away, become the old part of the agreement, giving way to the New."

I want you to notice, one cannot say "the law is the terms of both Covenants" as they are explaining how 1/3 of the law is not the terms of both covenants.

I am confident that person did not mean to say the national laws remain, even if that is how that comment reads. What they meant was, "The law is the terms of both covenants. 2/3 of the law are not the terms of both covenants."

The two big challenges here are:
1) Can one claim they are "keeping the law" when they reject 2/3 of the law?
2) How did two categories of the law dissolve with the Covenant, but one survive?

Sabbatarians ask me, "Why would God create a law just to get rid of it?" And I ask them, "So, you keep the ceremonial law, then?" And they say to me, "The ceremonial and national law was removed and no longer apply." Then I ask them, "Why would God create a law just to get rid of it?"
(There is an answer to that, by the way. It isn't arbitrary. I talk about it in other articles.)

But here is an interesting thing to ponder - just because theologians have divided the laws up into three groups does not mean they are equally 1/3 each. Since the Bible did not create these groups, they are open to interpretation and there is no official number. But the rough guesstimate is: Ceremonial=250-350, National=200-300, Moral=50-100. Do you see how much smaller the moral category is than the other two? It isn't 2/3 of the law that is gone, it's more like 5/6. A mere 1/6 of the law is "the law".

The claim is, since the laws are moral then they must remain. But where does the Bible say that? Is it law that creates morality? Is God moral because He keeps laws? I can't even get a straight answer on what "moral law" means. Which ones are the moral laws, exactly? I ask around, but I always get answers crafted to come to the conclusion that "moral" means "the laws we need to keep". So, we need to keep the moral law and the moral law are the ones we need to keep? Nothing circular there.

And let's not forget the definition changes over time. These groups tend to claim they are the original "one true church", which survived in hidden enclaves in the French Alps or somewhere. But when we read through history, including the histories written by these very churches, none of those earlier "true church eras" kept the same list as the next. How does that work?

And this is where the conversation usually devolves into ad hominem and straw men. "You're opposing Almighty God!" No. I'm searching for the truth, and God is truth. "God is going to make a third death just for you" Perhaps I would deserve it, but not for this. "Are you saying it's OK to murder and commit adultery??" No. As if the world outside their church is entirely populated by nothing other than rapists and murderers.
I am not justifying immorality. I am merely searching for straight answers.

Therefore, I propose there are really four categories: moral, ceremonial, national, and "the ones I want other people to keep".

But dividing up the law and tossing most of it is not end of the matter. Next, the law must endure a heavy editing process.

EDITING THE LAW

So, "the law" really means "moral law". This sounds great at first. But even that is not really what's going on.

A law isn't required because it is moral, but called "moral" because it is required (by themselves).

Don't understand the difference? Let's walk through this together.

Each group has their own set of laws which they require. Each group claims their list are the "moral laws". Remember - this includes such things as annual holy days, tithes, and meats laws. Things that are clearly not moral.

The weekly Sabbath is only called moral because it is one of the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Ten are moral laws. It is moral by association. It isn't called moral for its own qualities but because it must be moral or else it's hard to get it onto the list. But let's just say for sake of argument that it does have some kind of moral component in there. That does nothing for the annual sabbaths (holy days). They are not in the Ten. No moral by association here. So, how are they on the list? And what of meats laws? One cannot say certain animals were morally unclean. And what of tithes? Tithes are not moral in any way. Ten is not the moral percentage, whereas nine is ceremonial and eleven national. One could say charity is moral, but tithes were not charity. They were required, like taxes. How are they on the list?

So, a law is not required because it has a purely moral component. Rather, a law is called "moral" because it has made it onto their particular short list.

Days and tithes and foods are by nature ceremonial, not moral. But these ceremonial laws are on the list for some groups, and therefore they are re-christened as "moral law". The law is artificially divided into categories, then the definitions of the categories are manipulated.

But it's more than that. It is not just the categories that are manipulated but the individual laws themselves. Laws are taken away from and added to on an individual basis.

How so? Let's start with taking away from the law.

Tithing is mandatory, but the tithe is done incorrectly. Tithing was never 10% (it was 1-in-10; there's a difference), it was never on cash money, it doesn't go to Levites as the law demands (that was its primary reason for tithes to exist), the second tithe is used for one holy day only (Tabernacles), and most abandon the third tithe completely. If tithing is so moral, then why not follow the tithing law?

Some groups say the holy days are mandatory, but none of the laws on how to keep the holy days are mandatory. For example, most groups which claim Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles are mandatory do not go to Jerusalem to keep them as is required. Most have never built a booth in their lives. The Feast of Firstfruits is ignored almost completely. Few blow a shofar on Trumpets. And let's not even begin to describe Atonement.

And what of new moons? Psalm 81:3 and Hosea 2:11 do appear to call the new moon a feast day. Amos 8:5 practically treats it like a sabbath. And I Samuel 20 shows it being observed. Do a word search. "New moon" and "Sabbath" and "appointed feast" appear together far more often than not. Ignored completely.

One of the biggest steps on my journey out of Armstrongism was when I asked a close friend why the law says one thing about holy days but we do another, and he responded, "Herbert Armstrong changed the law out of necessity."
OUT OF NECESSITY???
So, we get to just edit the law to make it easier to keep because it's too challenging as written and we still get to claim we're "keeping the law"? If it's that simple, what did the Pharisees do that was so bad?

So, even if a law is on the list and is called "moral", the detailed rules on how to observe that law are ignored. How can a thing be moral when the instructions on how to that thing are not moral?
As I used to say quite often, "The law! The law! ... just not THAT law."

Now, let's move on to adding to the law.

We've discussed in the past how the Sabbath is not about when you go to church. The Fourth Commandment doesn't say to "go to church". Jesus went to synagogue ...but only because that was the tradition of the Pharisees. It wasn't a law. No law in the entire Bible says to "go to church" (or synagogue). That is added onto the law.

Armstrongism has manufactured an entire annual day called "Night To Be Much Remembered" or "Night To Be Much Observed". This day comes from a misreading of Exodus 12: 42. When read properly, it turns out Passover is the night to be observed. A whole day is added while other days are ignored.

I could go on and on like this. Have you ever read the details of what Ellen G White did to the law with all her additions and clarifications? Individual laws added to and taken away from, same as what the Pharisees did. And all this while they teach the law is required as written, unchanged, and they're the best at it.

It's cheating.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to what it may appear, my point in this article is not to point fingers and accuse. This article is only meant to show how the Sabbatarian solution to "the law is written on our hearts" is far less straightforward than it first appears. Jeremiah says "the law". Sabbatarians say "the law". But are we talking about the same thing? No.

We need to be mindful of what is really going on. It's important. Because the question before us is: is opinion 1 really the solution?
How can it be?

Despite all the people who claim the fulfillment of the prophecy is in observing the law, good luck finding one who believes it is the law as Jeremiah and Ezekiel knew it.
When the appeal turns to verses like Genesis 7:1 and 26:5 in an attempt to demonstrate the law is eternal, we have to ask, is it? When the appeal turns to Isaiah 66 in an attempt to demonstrate a law in the future is a law today, we have to ask, is it? Because when we look around, we see the whole law is given lip service but it is not being practiced or even required. Instead, "the law" has become several competing abbreviated and edited lists, constructed on proof-texts, designed to uphold predetermined conclusions, with each group convinced that its own list remains in force. Does keeping a custom list of laws fulfill the prophecy?

Whatever Jeremiah does mean, I cannot agree it is this.

Jeremiah said God would write His law on the heart. He did! The question is what God has in mind by "the law." And if He did not mean a selectively edited remnant of the Old Covenant, then what exactly did he mean?
We will discuss that in the next post.

For more, I suggest:

The Law (The Ten Commandments)
The Sabbath Rest of John 14
Is Ceremonial Law Removed?
Are the Ten Commandments Removed?
Confusing the Covenants
Why Not Keep Biblical Days?
Tithing - You're Doing It Wrong
Lawlessness and I John 3
Common Legalist Arguments - part 1
What Use Is The Old Law?
Old Covenant vs. New Covenant
The Road To Sabbatarianism - Part I
Law of Moses - Law of God - Part I

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

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

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

Paul's Use Of Psalm 32 In Romans 4

          The Epistle to the Romans is Paul's literary masterpiece on the doctrine of salvation. It is the most elegant of his extant writings. The apostle begins his treatise by presenting the issue of man's depravity, the righteousness of God, and his resultant condemnation. Paul shows that both Jew and Gentile have violated God's righteous commandments, making them wholly worthy of divine condemnation. He strips away every layer of man's hubris. Everyone stands guilty before Him, without any ability to challenge that divine verdict, but with the positive side being that God has presented a means of reconciliation for us through the atoning work of Jesus Christ.

          Paul makes an argument by example when he mentions Abraham, who lived prior to the Law being given to the people of God. He does this with the intent of showing that his teaching is compatible with the Old Testament. A system of works righteousness would result in boasting, which God takes offense at. Further, Romans 4:4 says that if someone earns wages, then it is not a gift. But justification is precisely that, so any claim to self-merit must be left out of that equation. Romans 4:5 says that God declares righteous the ungodly and counts them as such on the basis faith. Thus, the one and only thing a man can do in this scenario is set aside any dependence upon himself. 

          The Law required that two or three witnesses be present to establish the validity of a charge (Deuteronomy 19:15; Numbers 35:30). We see the Apostle Paul adhering to this custom in arguing for justification before God by faith as opposed to meritorious works. He brings up Abraham and King David as examples of men who were justified without consideration of good works. The latter person is of special interest as we consider how Paul ties in Psalm 32 with his argument. The Psalm in question is one of a penitential nature. What is especially striking is that, the Law did not have any provision of atonement for the man who committed murder. Yet, God forgave David anyway. This divine act helps to lay the foundation for Paul's declaration of God declaring righteous the ungodly and retaining His status as righteous in so doing.

          The Psalm used by the Apostle Paul concerns the blessedness of being freed from the guilt of sin that comes about as a result of God forgiving it. The misdeeds King David had repented of were sending Uriah the Hittite into battle to be killed with the intent of covering up his affair with Bathsheba. One scandalous act led him to committing another, but his scheming failed utterly in the end. Further, David uses three words to describe his conduct, showcasing the richness of Hebrew vocabulary, which are guilt, wrongdoing, and sin. His act was a distortion of decency. It was crooked, not upright. It was a violation of the Law. Three words are used in Psalm 32 to describe three different aspects of breaching the divine moral standard.

          Contrariwise, David used three terms to describe God's mercy: forgiven, covered, and not being taken into account. To be "forgiven" of our sins means that God has taken them away from us. To have our sins "covered" means that their penalty has been met. That leads up to the forgiveness of our sins by God. In fact, Romans 4:7 is the only instance in which this word occurs in the New Testament. When sin is not taken into account, that means we do not merit for ourselves God's eschatological wrath. He does not treat us with the eternal fate that we deserve, just as David himself was spared physical death for his actions. Forgiveness is entirely a matter of grace, not an obligation owed to us. We are actually the ones indebted to God, and could never even begin to repay Him for our sin.

          It is worth noting that King David did not mention any good deeds done to earn God's favor. In fact, he only brought up his sin, with its gravity being enormous. He came to God with nothing, but was still forgiven for what he had done. God is said to give a righteous status to men who are ungodly, since David was very much deserving judgment and had not one thing to offer in his defense. The non-imputation of sin to a believer's account necessarily implies an upright standing before Him. Hence, David was regarded as righteous in God's sight. Walter Roehrs, in the the Concordia Self-Study Commentary, Old Testament, p. 355, writes:

          "And indeed David claims no merit or worthiness, entitling him to absolution; even his penitential tears and abject remorse do not produce anything deserving consideration. Giving all glory to God, he revels in sharing the happiness which is bestowed out of pure grace on the man to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity (1-2)."

          The Apostle Paul uses King David as an example of a man being declared righteous in spite of his sins against God. Both he and Abraham can speak to the reality of justification apart from works. Their experiences are spoken of as equivalent to each other. Romans 4:7 and Romans 4:8 emphasize our pardon from sin. The point being made in these parallel stanzas is that we are not justified by good works. David speaks of the "blessed man" who receives full pardon from sin, which implies that he believed others could experience the same. Paul here recontextualized the meaning of forgiveness as deliverance from earthly death to being set free from its punishment in the life to come. This excerpt from the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, p. 624, is relevant here:

"...In contrast with many of the rabbinic references to Ps. 32, Paul makes no mention of the confession of sins, which is a central theme of the psalms (cf. Ps. 32:5; see Str-B 3:202-3). Confession is implicitly taken up in faith for Paul, in which sin that has overpowered our person is overcome: in faith "we give glory to God" (4:20; cf. 1:23; 3:26). As was the case with the story of Abraham, the broader context of the psalm makes clear that the "reckoning of righteousness" is no mere declaration, but rather an effective word."

          Confession is faith in Jesus Christ expressed. Repentance is the recognition of the need of redemption from sin and its penalty, involving a change of mind and heart. These things are closely associated with salvation and cannot be separated from it. The New Testament never takes into consideration the idea of a Christian either failing to do one or both. Confession and repentance are assumed of believers without exception. They are lived expressions of faith that acknowledge the gravity of sin and entrust themselves completely to the grace of God.

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

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

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

Lawlessness and I John 3

You may have heard, "Sin is the transgression of the law." A favorite Sabbatarian proof-text. You may have also heard "lawlessness" means being without the Old Covenant law". If so, the Pharisees should have been the least lawless people in Israel. Yet Jesus accused them of lawlessness. There is more to lawlessness than the law.

---

In my last post, "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", I wrote about how "keep My commandments" did not refer to the Ten Commandments. We learned what "commandments" means. Today, I want to discuss another proof text for law-keeping: I John 3: 4. Let's see what "lawlessness" means.

The Bible was not written in KJV English

When I was a Sabbatarian, I took the word "lawlessness" to mean "being without the law". The Old Covenant law, that is. I mean, just look at the word: law-less. Even the Greek word anomos (ἄνομος) literally translates to "without law". Can it get plainer than that? Mainstream Christians claim they are under grace rather than law, but isn't that the very definition of 'lawlessness' which Jesus and the Apostles spoke out against? 

I understand how easy it is to come to this conclusion, but the conclusion is not built on a careful examination of the concept of lawlessness. It's built on what I just said, the word itself. Granted it is an obvious conclusion, but is it the right conclusion? For example, are you reckless only when you don't have any reck?

If anyone was ever in favor of the Old Covenant law, it was the Pharisees. If we are going to take this word on face value, then Jesus accused the most law-oriented people in Israel of being the ones who possessed the least law. 
They had the full law yet did not have the law? How does that work?

This is not lost on Sabbatarians. We simply concluded they had too much law. The Pharisees added to it, and that was just as bad as taking away from it (DEU. 4: 2).
But doesn't having too much law break the definition of "being without the law"? Too much law is the opposite of no law.

As a Sabbatarian, I would have responded that the Pharisees were nullifying the law with their traditions (MAT. 15: 6). They were using traditions and interpretations to remove God's intent for the law. They were spiritually lawless.

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. Do you see how the argument is subtly moving away from "without Torah" towards something much deeper?

My point in this back and forth is to demonstrate that even those who define lawlessness as 'not having the Old Covenant law' know it is not so simple.

How does this all tie together? What is lawlessness? How can those who are the most focused on the law be lawless? Is sin defined as breaking the Old Covenant law? What does any of this have to do with Christians in the New Covenant? And are grace-based Christians guilty of the same offense as the Pharisees?

Today's article is going to rely on you having read the Road to Sabbatarianism series. If you read that series, you will be much better prepared to understand some concepts in this article.

Let's start with the prime proof-text of this view.

KJV ONLY

In Sabbatarian theology, few verses are more foundational than this one: 

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

Not just this verse, but the King James Version rendering of this verse, specifically. The conclusion we are supposed to reach is, "If the definition of sin is to violate the law, then don't violate the law!" It overrides practically any discussion on how Covenants work.

But here's the thing - that's not what the verse actually says.

hē [the] hamartia [sin] estin [is] hē [the] anomia [lawlessness]

Sin is lawlessness.

Don't understand the difference? Let's walk through this together.

The KJV translators rendered the single Greek word anomia (ἀνομία) as “transgression of the law.” But “transgression of the law” is not in the Greek text. Perhaps you could translate anomia simply as “transgression” or “lawlessness,” but not both.
“Transgression of the law” worked reasonably well 500 years ago, when English usage was broader and less technical than it is today. But in modern English, the phrase sounds far more specific and legalistic than the Greek word anomia supports. 

The translators of the NKJV tried to preserve the language and feel of the KJV wherever possible. Their decision to render anomia as ‘lawlessness’ here instead of ‘transgression of the law’ is telling.

With that correction in wording should come a correction in understanding. I propose John is not defining sin as literally "lacking the Old Covenant law". Rather, he is using anomia to reveal what sin is at heart (pun intended). John is adding gravity to sin.

In order to understand why John thinks lawlessness is such a terrible thing to be accused of, we need to understand what lawlessness meant to him in the first place. Let's see some examples of how the underlying Greek words were used in the Apostles' time and place.

SEPTUAGINT AND BEYOND

I don’t want to get buried in a lesson on the Greek language. Just know there are several words in play here, such as anomos (lawless; adjective), anomia (lawlessness; noun), and anomōs (lawlessly; adverb) along with their various forms. These are a family of words built around the same basic idea.

This word family appears several times in the the Septuagint; the Greek Old Testament. We know the Apostles read the Septuagint because they often quote it. Let's see a few examples.

(PSA. 32: 1) Blessed are they whose transgressions [anomiai] are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

(PSA. 51: 2) Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity [anomias], and cleanse me from my sin.

(ISA. 53: 5) But he was wounded on account of our transgressions, and was bruised because of our iniquities [anomiai]: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; by his bruises we were healed.

Clearly, these do not indicate Old Covenant law was missing. Was King David without Torah? Was Messiah bruised because no one had Torah? How can "being without Torah" be plural? "Being without Torahs"?

If you scan every instance of this word family in the Septuagint, then check how translators render those into English, you get a list with words like: iniquity, transgression, wickedness, unrighteousness, lawlessness. The idea isn't an absence or imbalance in Old Covenant law, but moral corruption and rebellion against God.

But the Septuagint wasn't the only Greek resource we can check. When we investigate how these words were used in the Qumran community (think Dead Sea Scrolls), or by Josephus, or in the wider Greek world, we find such things as: violation of social order, covenant betrayal, impurity, wickedness, disorder, spiritual corruption, opposition to God's will, rebellion.

To put that into an easy-to-digest visual:

Septuagint (moral) → transgression, iniquity, wickedness, rebellion

Qumran (covenantal) → covenant betrayal, impurity, corruption, rebellion

Josephus (historical/political) → wickedness, disorder, rebellion

Wider Greek usage (social/civic) → disorder, social chaos, impiety, rebellion

This shows us what a broad range of meanings these words had. The idea is nowhere near as simple as "without law" let alone "without Old Covenant law".

Now, notice something strange in Matthew:

(MAT. 7: 23) And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness (anomia)!’

A popular verse. You've probably read it a thousand times. But, practice lawlessness? How odd. Jesus says much the same in MAT. 13:41. Which definition of lawlessness makes more sense here?
A) Practice "without the law"
or
B) practice [the words listed above]

I'm going with B!

Consider how odd it is to accuse someone of actively doing "without the law". As if "without the law" is something you can do. Using a noun like an action is not unusual. People "commit murder" or "show mercy". But how does one commit "no law"? It's like saying, "I'm going to insufficient funds tonight." It makes no sense.

But practicing wickedness or corruption or iniquity makes complete sense.

Given this, it is not advisable to jump to the conclusion that "lawlessness" means "being without the Old Covenant law." Taking the word at face value actually misses the point.

Let's compare these two very different definitions of lawless to see which works better for the Pharisees.

ALLIES IN OPEN REBELLION

Jesus did not accuse everyone of lawlessness. Jesus criticized the Sadducees sure enough, but He never directly accused them of lawlessness. Strangely, He never directly accused the Romans of lawlessness. They seem to be the most deserving.

What was Jesus accusing the Pharisees of, then? Consider the definitions in the previous section. They were rebellious.

Hypocritical. Vain. Argumentative. Accusers. Political. Scheming. Entrapping. Fastidious about the law, but completely missing the point. Claiming they were God's people, but could not recognize Him. Using the law as a weapon to set themselves up and to beat others down.

Lawlessness is things like this. ↑↑↑↑

When Jesus accused the Pharisees of lawlessness, He did not single out the law as the problem, and He didn't offer them the law as the solution. See for yourself:

(MAT. 23: 28) Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

How can one be filled with "without law"? It's even more absurd than saying they were doing "without law".
But did you miss the part of how they appeared righteous? On the outside they were keeping the law. Paul felt Pharisees kept the law. He described it in Philippians 3, "a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee" [v5] ... "concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" [v6]. But many times he goes on to describe his own failures. So, they were not "without the law".
Others thought the Pharisees were righteous, because they were keeping the law. The lawlessness was inside ...of their hearts. God knew.

(MAT. 15: 8) These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.

I think we've fairly well established the meaning of lawlessness. Now, let's circle back again to I John 3.

LAWLESS AT HEART

(I JON. 3: 4) [NKJV] Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

Notice John says “also”: “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness.” They are separate in concept, but inseparable in practice. All sin falls under the umbrella of lawlessness. Lawlessness is all those terrible things we saw above, and sin is a manifestation of it. What I am driving at here is: sin is a symptom of something wrong inside. Something that law-keeping in and of itself cannot fix.
Did John write this to a Christian in order to emphasize the law? No. He did it to emphasize the gravity of sin!

So, we have to ask, is being 'under grace not law' the very definition of 'lawlessness' which Jesus and the Apostles spoke out against? No.

But it can be! ...if we don't take sin seriously.

We are in danger of developing the attitude that since we are under grace we can behave any way we wish and we'll just be forgiven. There are moral requirements in Christianity. In the age of grace, sin is still sinful. In the age of the New Covenant, covenant betrayal is still possible. As a good friend of mine said, "Sin is acting like you don't have any obligation to anybody but your own needs and wants." Jesus didn't only come to save you, He came so He could send the Holy Spirit to transform you. John's point is much the same message as Paul's from Romans 6. Discipleship means to become like the Teacher. If you're not becoming like the Teacher, then what are you doing?

So, what of the law? I know someone out there is still thinking the law is the medicine for sin. It's not. The Holy Spirit is.

In "The Road to Sabbatarianism - part III", we saw how both sin and righteousness can exist apart from the law. Sin is any violation of God's nature. The law was neither the ultimate source of nor the solution for sin. All of those first-century Jews who rejected their Messiah had the Mosaic law. How'd that go?
The Pharisees had the law, and everyone thought they were righteous (except the One who knows the heart). This tells us the law can either reveal the issue or it can be used to mask the issue. Because law-keeping relies on the heart, one thing it cannot do is remove the issue. If it could, then Jesus died in vain (GAL. 2: 21).
In the New Covenant, sin is not about the Old Covenant law. New covenant, new terms. And the righteousness God wants does not come from law-keeping, but from His own righteousness being credited to us by faith. 
None of this is about the old law. John never wrote "sin is the transgression of the law". The word "lawlessness" is not about the Torah. It certainly isn't about trying to find the proper balance of Torah. All of this is about the heart. It's about God and our relationship with Him.

John 3:4 may not point to the Old Covenant law, but John also does not leave us with the idea that grace means having no rules whatsoever.

(I JON. 3: 23) And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

As we saw in "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", John's antidote to sin and lawlessness is a life defined by faith and love. If you are following the Holy Spirit, would you be lawless?

CONCLUSION

Does the Bible define sin as "the transgression of the law"? No. John never wrote that.
Remember, the meme at the start of this article says, 'It's not what you think sin is, it's what does scripture say sin is.' Well, scripture doesn't say that.
John wrote, “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness”

Lawlessness is not best understood as 'being without the Old Covenant law', or 'being with too much Old Covenant law', or even 'not Sabbathing properly'. That is not what it meant in the original Greek. If it were, then Sabbatarians - who only keep about 2-3% of the law - are far more lawless than the Pharisees.
The obvious reading is misleading.

As the back and forth at the start of this post shows, even those who redefine lawlessness as "lacking Torah" eventually run into this same conclusion that I am making now - there is much more to lawlessness than meets the eye.
It isn't that one is literally without laws, but that one is figuratively without them. Spiritually without controls and boundaries. That's why you can have the law yet still be lawless (and not just the Pharisees, because we see "lawlessness" throughout the Old Testament). Lawlessness is a problem of the heart. It is about betraying the Covenant that you are in. It is a rebellion against the God we claim to follow. In effect, it is a rejection of Him.

It is lovelessness, faithlessness, hypocrisy, injustice, symbol over substance, and corruption hiding beneath outward religiosity.

It is going through the motions. It is being spiritually off course without correcting it. It's comparing ourselves to others and pointing the finger at them. It is accusing our neighbor rather than helping them. It is mouthing Jesus is your Lord, yet behaving like anything but. It is a mask of righteousness. It is claiming you keep the law when you you've missed the point. If even Satan himself can appear as an angel of light, then we humans can use law and grace to lie about our spiritual condition, too.

That is why lawlessness is such a serious accusation. John was not putting us all under the law. Rather, John was packing all the terrible meanings above into one word (lawlessness) and applying it to sin to expose what sin really is. And sin is but a symptom, a symptom of this internal problem.

The law cannot fix this. Never could. Law can only expose it ...or hide it.

I have always admired the way Armstrongism recognized there is more to the Christian walk than merely "being forgiven". There is a genuine emphasis on personal responsibility and the danger of becoming spiritually complacent. I may fundamentally disagree that this responsibility means keeping [3% of] the Old Covenant law, but I agree Christians should prayerfully consider their loyalty to the New Covenant in how they live. I believe that is what John was trying to express in his epistle.

Sin is lawlessness, and lawlessness is serious.

Here are some posts to help you move forward:

Sin Is The Transgression of The Law?
Antinomianism and Motivation of Heart
Two Trees - Two Covenants
Gardening With God, or Growing Spiritual Fruit
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
Law of Moses, Law of God

This post is somewhat of a loose series with the following articles:

Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66
The Sabbath Rest of John 14

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

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

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