The Road To Sabbatarianism - Part III

Part 3 of 3, where we review some of the chief things that lead a person into Sabbatarianism.

---

Today we conclude talking about what, in my experience, are the top things which I've seen over the years that lead a person into Sabbatarianism.

In the previous posts, we saw the road to Sabbatarianism includes:

• Insufficient information,
• Misunderstanding who Jesus is,
• Misunderstanding the two Covenants,
• Misunderstanding the singular nature of the body of laws,
• Not Properly Understanding To Whom The Bible Was Written, and
• Not Properly Understanding the Sabbath itself.

Today's post is going to require everything we've reviewed up to this point. That's why I've saved it for last. (See if you can spot where the points above fit into the scenario below.) Today, we will see two critical errors in understanding, and then we'll see what to do about it.

Please understand that this is a much bigger topic than I can do justice to here. This is merely a surface overview, not a manifesto. I am only touching on things relevant to the topic at hand, and my hope is you will take it from here on your own. I will put some resources at the end to help you further. First, let's see how far you can make it through this post before walking away.

Thinking Laws Define Sin and Righteousness

Sabbatarianism is a symptom of a fundamental misunderstanding about sin and righteousness. 

The base assumption is that law - Old Covenant laws, Ten Commandments especially - defines sin itself, and therefore righteousness. It does not.
And therefore sin is breaking those laws, and righteousness is "keeping" those laws. (Partially keeping, that is.) It is not.
Now that I've lost most of my audience....
Refer back to our very first point in this series. In that post, I said the claim "the Sabbath is necessary for righteousness" is based on a false premise about the law. Let's see why.

Sin Without Law

The first critical error is thinking sin needs a law to exist. This is one side of the coin.

We all know there is such a thing as sin. The legalist mindset equates sin with law-breaking. Sin apart from law doesn't compute. They conclude the Old Covenant law is the only law, and so they imagine the Old law is everywhere - for Cain and Abel, for Gentiles in the New Covenant, and even for the angels. This definition causes other things to make no sense, like "sin nature", the weakness we all have to sin. (If a law isn't written, are we weak to it, or is there more to sin than written laws?) This can be taken to an extreme. "A Christ without law is a false Christ," I've heard it said. As if to say Christ must perpetually be subject to the law, even after His death. Which, of course, is contrary to the law.

If law defines sin, then there cannot be sin without law. Yet, the Bible tells us sin does not need a written law to exist.

(ROM. 2: 12a) For as many as have sinned without law...
(ROM. 5: 13) For until the law sin was in the world...
(GAL. 3: 17a) And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later...
(GAL. 3: 19) What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions...

Therefore, the claim must be false.

And before the KJV fans get angry with me, no, I am not ignoring I John 3: 4. (For more, see "Without the Law There Is No Sin".) I want to clarify that I am talking more about sin itself in the larger sense. If there is a Covenant which applies to you and a law is in that Covenant, then yes, breaking that law is a sin (the Old Covenant does not apply to you). I am not saying rules have no part to play at all. But sin in and of itself does not require a law to exist.

Righteousness Without Law

The second critical error is assuming righteousness needs a law to exist. This is the other side of the coin.

Once we equate sin with law-breaking, it seems natural to equate righteousness to law-keeping. What else could it be? Yet, the Bible tells us righteousness does not require a law to keep.

(ROM. 2: 14-15) 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness...
(ROM. 3: 21) But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
(GAL. 2: 21) I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.
(GAL. 3: 21) For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.

God is righteous, but not because of keeping laws.

Neither sin nor righteousness require a law. If not by law, then what and how are these things?

Sin

Here is a glimpse into the Sabbatarian thinking:
Murder is wrong? Yes. Adultery is wrong? Yes. Theft is wrong? Yes. Idolatry is wrong? Yes. Then, this means the Ten Commandments are still valid, and therefore Sabbath-breaking is wrong, too. False!

How??

Murder, adultery, idolatry, and etc are sins, it's true, but not because of the Old Covenant law. There is a greater principle at work, which has always been and always will be.

Jesus said the two greatest commandments were to love (MAT. 22: 34-40). Everything else hangs on these (even the Sabbath). Everything in the Old Covenant law is summed up in these two. "Hangs on" indicates dependence; because of; lower than. But above these two is love itself. And God is love (I JON. 4: 7-8). It is the nature of God which is highest. So, any violation of love is a violation of His nature. And therefore, at its very core, sin is a violation of God. David understood this about sin (PSA. 51: 4).

And that extends to us, His images. When we violate (or bless) each other, we violate (or bless) Him (MAT. 25: 40). When Saul persecuted the church, what did Jesus say (ACT. 9: 3-6)?

Sin is not just a violation of God's loving nature, but any aspect of God. His reason, justice, truth, etc. In the Old Covenant period, we see this expressed in laws, laws, laws. Like a nanny guiding Israel (GAL. 3: 23-25). But if laws, laws, laws were all we needed, Jesus never would have arrived in the first place. Now, Jesus has come and that Covenant has gone. Replaced by the very One who built it. In the New Covenant period, things have matured quite a bit. So, sin and righteousness are much more than just lists of laws. Sin and righteousness are distilled to their essence. The law described many good things. Those things do continue, but not because of the law. They continue because of God Himself. This is not a distinction without a difference.

Righteousness

When I was an Armstrongist, we would often say, "Sin is missing the mark." That is a good way to understand it! But what mark? Our answer was the law, of course (the ones we picked). Ironically, that answer misses the mark. If law-keeping were the answer, then the Pharisees would be kings! Yet, Jesus called them lawless (MAT. 23: 28). (You can see "lawless" does not mean "without law".) But if not law-keeping, then what is the standard? Isn't it obvious? If sin is violating God, then righteousness is...

(MAT. 5: 48) Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
(I JON. 3: 3) And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
(I PET. 1: 15) but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct

...mirroring Him. God Himself is the target and the standard, and God's holy, righteous perfection is expected of us. Anything less is sin.

Still think you're basically a "good person"?

Wait, what?! I can handle not murdering, but this is too much for me! Woe is me! How do we, mere sinners, ever achieve such a lofty thing??
We cannot. It's impossible.
The law was intended to help Israel realize this. Poorly keeping a handful of laws was never the solution. The law is good, but law-keeping fails because it relies on us. We are the issue.

So, I am offering you impossibility?? No.
But I just said it was impossible! Yes.  ...for us.

Look. Our own righteousness is not what God wants. It's filthy. It's incomplete. It's sporadic. It's imperfect. It's barely better than sin. (ISA. 64: 6; ROM. 3: 10.) The law is great for showing us this wretched condition of ours (and condemning us for it), but it does little at all for fixing it. Remember, it was the people who were the most fanatic about the law that killed the very Law Giver.
Begrudgingly - or worse, self-righteously - doing our law-keeping rituals and thinking it earns something from God is so far from the mark I cannot find a good word for it. Sitting idle for 1/7th of your life certainly is not going to make you more like God. Using the law as a weapon to beat others with, like Satan, when we are supposed to understand our own guilt and therefore act as attorneys for the defense, is among the worst things we can do.

Promising God that this time you're going to try even harder is not the solution. (You know you do it.) The solution to our weakness is His strength. What God wants is His own perfect righteousness within us. That is what righteousness is. His righteousness. Remember MAT. 5: 48.
Not to try harder, but to surrender.

Faith

How can anyone achieve this? Not by law. The law is all or nothing. Sabbatarians are fond of saying, "Jesus did not die so we could continue to sin." Well said! But He also didn't die so we could continue failing to achieve righteousness via the Old Covenant. There is but one way for us: faith!

(ROM. 3: 21-22a) But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.
(PHP. 3: 9) ...and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith...

This grace comes only by being one with Him through faith, He solves the problem as we are credited His righteousness and covered by His grace. This is about so much more than just forgiveness! In this life and in our present condition, the path to achieving real, biblical righteousness is not to look to ourselves but to Him. His efforts, not ours. His righteousness, not ours. Not to the law, which is beneath, but to faith and love, which is above.

Do me this favor - read the book of Romans again with this in mind. I know you don't agree with me yet, but try anyway. Especially chapters 3 and 4. See for yourself if it fits. But here is one good selection for you:

(ROM. 9: 30-32) 30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

Once you see it, you'll see it all over in the New Testament.

(GAL. 5: 5-6) 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision [being a Jew with the law] nor uncircumcision [being a Gentile with no law] avails anything, but faith working through love.

Remember this phrase: Jesus is the law-keeper.
(ROM. 5: 19) For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
He is the only one who ever truly kept it. He is the only one who could. The law is one indivisible body. Break one and you're broken them all. In over a thousand years of law-keeping, Israel never once achieved the goal. Only Jesus, the True Israel, did. And the Sabbatarian conclusion is even more of the same frustrated failure? No! Jesus Himself tore down that system. And He replaced it with Himself (ROM. 10: 4).

When you conclude righteousness comes from laws, you stumble over Jesus, the source and goal of righteousness. But when you conclude righteousness comes from God to us through faith, you fulfill the goal of the law.

Get this in place first. Then, let our lives be an expression of this truth; of His love. It is the only way.

And that should lead you to realize this: Works are not a cause of righteousness, they are a result.

Righteousness is a proper relationship with God, and works should be an expression of the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit. For sake of time, I am not going to get into works today. But understand that "works" does not equal law-keeping. It equals love. Faith expressed in works of love. James and Paul, Peter and John all speak the same thing on this. And that is why Paul can say, "for whatever is not from faith is sin," (ROM. 14: 23b), and "love fulfills the law" (ROM. 13: 8-10; GAL. 5: 14; JAS. 2: 8).

Murder is wrong? Correct. Adultery is wrong? Correct. Theft is wrong? Correct. Then we must keep a seventh-day Sabbath, too. False!
How??
The nature of God, and faith working through love! A well-formed conscience that follows the Holy Spirit is not going to be doing evil things. They will be enjoying a Sabbath rest in Jesus Christ.
The Old Covenant and its laws is gone. A direct connection to God is brought in. Faith and love - that is the law in the New Covenant. (It has always been the law. I JON. 2: 7; II JON. 1: 5-6.)

(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.

The road to Sabbatarianism is paved with a fundamental misunderstandings of law, faith, love, sin, and righteousness. Sabbatarianism is not necessarily a detour away from these things, but it very easily can be.

CONCLUSION

I think that's enough. Those are the most important points, in my experience, that lead to Sabbatarianism. These are things I wish I'd known before I "studied" myself into the system. I hope they help you. There are definitely more things that could have been on the list, but I needed to choose only so many or risk dragging this out far too long.

In this series, we saw how the road to Sabbatarianism always involves:

• Insufficient information - The road to Sabbatarianism always involves not having enough accurate information which one needs to truly understand the issue and make truly informed decisions. Hopefully these articles help with this.
• Misunderstanding who Jesus is - This is the most important point in this list. Understanding who Jesus is and what He did, and following that through to its conclusion, is key not just to this but to everything.
• Misunderstanding the two Covenants - We must, must, must comprehend what a covenant is and which Covenant we belong in. Truly understanding this point alone would solve most issues.
• Misunderstanding the singular nature of the law - There are not 10 laws, nor 20, nor 500, but 613, in the Old Covenant. Do not add to nor take away from them. Keep all the law, or you're not keeping the law at all. Jesus is the only one who ever has, or could.
• Misunderstanding to whom the Bible was directly written - It wasn't to "us". But it was for us.
• Misunderstanding the Sabbath in the New Covenant - Going to church on Sabbath is never commanded anywhere in the Bible. Not once. Rest is, though. But the Sabbath day never gave rest. A new rest was promised and now it is delivered. The rest is by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. The rest is for our very souls.
• Misunderstanding sin and righteousness - Both sin and righteousness exist apart from laws. Laws only put sin on display and condemn us. Righteousness and sin are not in laws, but in our proper relationship with God. A rightly ordered relationship with God is bounded by the New Covenant. Believe, have faith, and stay true to the Covenant God made with you, and you will be counted as righteous by faith. Same as Abraham. Then, go, love God and one another.

If you spend just a little of your precious time to study these things before you rush off to a Sabbatarian church, you may just save yourself quite a bit of headache later on down the road.

Most of my target audience will never read this far. It is simply too much for the legalist mindset to accept. You, dear reader, are to be commended for making it to this point. Have these been difficult things? I do apologize. I honestly feel like this is a Christianity 101 series. The basics. At least they ought to be basics. If modern church leaders would do their jobs properly, they would be. I know this can be a very difficult topic until it "clicks" (sometimes, even afterward). There is a lot more to this topic than I can get to here. So, to help you further, I suggest a few articles:
"Without the Law There Is No Sin"
"Sin And The Law"
"Covenant Loyalty, Righteousness In Faith"
"Are The Ten Commandments Removed?"
"Works, Faith and Salvation - or Faith and Parachutes, Part 2"
"Faith, What It Aint"
"What Use Is The Old Law?"
"Common Legalist Arguments part VI"

Our Categories page has quite a few more articles to help you now that you have the basics.

Our friends over at the "God Cannot Be Contained" blog also have some very helpful material for you. They would love to help you along your journey to understanding.
Also, Rescue Ministries International has a fabulous article on the Sabbath which I highly recommend, titled "The Sabbath, the Patriarchs, and the Sinai Covenant".

I leave you with a prayer, dear reader, beloved by God. I pray the Holy Spirit fill you and guide you to a fuller, deeper faith and love in and through Jesus Christ to the glory of the Father. I pray you will be led by the Holy Spirit to a truer understanding and a more meaningful walk with Him in the New Covenant.

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus Was Not Against Religion

Sometimes I get in a mood and I just need a good rant. Today is one of those days. I am going to say something today that is going to tick some people off really good. But I'm saying it anyway.

Jesus. Was. Not. Against. Religion.

Jesus was the one who instituted the Levitical system! He wasn't against religion. How can He be against the religious system which He instituted? We are talking about the Man who made a whip of cords and in zeal for His Father's house drove out money changers from the temple, saying, "Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!" (JON. 2: 13-17). He was talking about the temple. The center of the religious system.
He simply was against the hypocrisy of the leadership who had twisted it into something unprofitable to man or God.

(MAT. 23: 1-3) 1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do."

This verse doesn't explain it all, but it summarizes it all.
The Pharisees had authority. God gave it to them. Jesus recognized that. He said for the Jews to do what the religious leaders commanded - in reference to religious observance - only do not be like them. Because they were hypocrites!

In other words -
Do the religion, but don't do it like those bad examples.

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.

If the leaders had just followed the religious system God (including the Son) instituted, all would have been well. That's what the system was instituted for in the first place, to keep Israel until Messiah could come (GAL. 3: 19, 23). It could have kept them, but they would not let it.

(MAT. 23: 37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

Read the rest of Matthew 23. It wasn't the religion He railed against, it was their attitudes. It wasn't the system Jesus was against, it was the bad hearts of the leadership! They were trying to murder the Lord of Life just like they murdered the prophets because their hearts were sick and so their ways were sick.

If you take this and go back to Malachi, you can see this was the problem for some time by that point. The whole book was about this same thing. Go back again further to the prophets. It was the same.

(ISA. 9: 16) For the leaders of this people cause them to err, and those who are led by them are destroyed.

So, Jesus needed to replace them.
He came to do what they could not do because of the hardness of their hearts and lack of understanding.
He came to save them from themselves.

Some people read what Jesus did and said and they conclude He was against religion. No! He instituted the religion! Jesus was not against religion per se. He was against the corruption of good religion by its bad leaders.

Am I all pro-religion now? Nothing I've written today changes one iota of what I've written since 2008. It compliments it.
Am I saying Gentiles should become Jews in order to be Christians? No! Gentiles were never under that system. If Jews want to accept Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah (aka. convert to Christianity) yet retain their particular Jewish traditional uniqueness, all the best to them! Do it. There's nothing wrong with that. That's what the Apostles did at first. But that has nothing to do with Gentiles.
Am I saying people should run out and get themselves some old timey religion, with the high liturgy and the incense? Not necessarily. If that's where the Spirit leads then join in, but if not then blossom where you're planted. I fear you may find our modern churches suffer from this same thing. Too many people were hurt by bad hearts in those churches to ever go back and my heart goes out to such. I sympathize because I was hurt, too.
What am I saying, then? From beginning to end, I am only saying to read the Bible in context.

It wasn't religion that was bad, it was hearts that were bad. Have a good heart. Have a heart that is willing to be a temple for God. That's the key takeaway.

(JAS. 1: 27) Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

And in my next post, God willing, I am going to write about how Jesus wasn't against the law, either.

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

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

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

Are The Ten Commandments Removed?

In my post, Is Ceremonial Law Removed? we investigated whether or not the ceremonial law was indeed gone, as many claim. We found that even though it is removed, the very ones who stress the hardest that it is gone are the ones treating it the most like it is not gone. They do this by retaining cherry-picked elements of ceremonial law while telling us those elements are somehow not ceremonial.
Today, we will do this same investigation on the Ten Commandments.

Unfortunately, this topic will mean a long post. My apologies in advance.

Do we have to keep the Ten Commandments in the New Covenant? Does eliminating the Ten Commandments kick the door wide open for an immoral free-for-all, as some claim? Can we modify the Ten Commandments and still say we're keeping them? Are we keeping them even if we don't realize it?

This and more will be explored as you read on. Let's start at the start.

WHAT ARE THE TEN?

The Ten Commandments were first given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Moses was to give them to Israel. They were for Israel alone (DEU. 5: 3). If you read Deuteronomy 5: 1-22 or Exodus 20: 1-17, you'll be up to speed.

Regarding the name "Ten Commandments", I will quote Judaism 101:

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

The Ten Commandments should not be translated "commandments". This fact ought to help people who are confused when they see the word commandments in the New Testament. We might read, "If you love Me, keep My commandments," and think that is referring to the Ten Commandments, because they both say commandments, but that is incorrect. They do not both say "commandments" in Hebrew. Ancient Jews, the actual audience, wouldn't think this. The Ten shouldn't have been translated commandments in the first place.

People argue over how the Ten should be numbered, but the numbering is really an artificial construct. The Bible does not number them. The difference seems to come from what source you used. In the end, it doesn't matter if the Sabbath command is listed as the third or the fourth. The numbering is artificial anyway.

In Armstrongism, the Sabbath command is numbered as the fourth. This happens to be the way most Jewish groups number them. This is not how the Catholics number them. That is neither right nor wrong. It just is. The failure comes in when one accuses others of eliminating the fourth commandment simply because the numbering is different. Catholics have not removed the Sabbath command. They just list it as the third rather than the fourth. You can see that for yourself in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part three, Section two, Chapter one, Article three "The Third Commandment". Church of God ministers bring shame on themselves for violating the command against bearing false witness while they preach about the validity of the Ten Commandments.

COVENANT LAW

The Ten Commandments are "covenant law". What does that mean? It means the Ten Commandments are inextricably part of the Old Covenant.

Think of the Old Covenant as a contract. The only difference between a covenant and a contract is God is directly involved. It is a legally binding agreement between specific parties to achieve specific ends for a specific duration of time. All contracts apply only to the parties of that contract, in this case God and Israel. Contracts by definition cannot apply to anyone who is not party to that contract. All contracts have terms. Terms are what the parties agree to do. The law are the terms. All good contracts also have penalties. Penalties are what happens if the terms are not met. Contracts have a start. The Old started at Sinai. Contracts have a termination. For an individual Israelite, it ended when they died. When God died, it ended for everyone.
We go over this in great detail in our post "Confusing the Covenants".

All 613 laws in the Torah, including the Ten Commandments, are the terms of the Old Covenant. It's not like we have the Torah over here, and the Old Covenant over there, and the two really are only tangentially linked. No. They are essentially linked. The Ten Commandments are integral to the Covenant.

(EXO. 34: 28) So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

(DEU. 4: 13) So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

(DEU. 5: 1-21) … 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive. 4 The LORD talked with you face to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 5 I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up the mountain. He said… [lists the Ten Commandments].
(DEU. 9: 9) When I went up into the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water.

(DEU. 9: 11) And it came to pass, at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.

(DEU. 9: 15) So I turned and came down from the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire; and the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands.

Recall the Ark of the Covenant. Why do you suppose they called it the Ark of the Covenant? Because it was the Ark (box, repository) of the Covenant (Ten Commandments).

(I KIN. 8: 9, 21) 9 Nothing was in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. 21 And there I have made a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD which He made with our fathers, when He brought them out of the land of Egypt.

Anyone who insists the Decalogue is not the Old Covenant, I'm very sorry, but the overwhelming weight of this evidence stands against your interpretation.

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

The Old Covenant law does not exist apart from the covenant. The law does not stand alone. The Ten only exist within and because of the Old Covenant. The covenant is what binds the law on the people. They agreed to the terms (the law).

Understanding covenants is utterly, absolutely, critically essential. Not understanding covenants, and how the law and the Old Covenant are one, is the single biggest mistake most legalists make.

If you actually read the Judaism 101 article I mentioned earlier, you will see they start the article like this:

"All 613 of those mitzvot [laws] are equally sacred, equally binding and equally the word of G-d. All of these mitzvot are treated as equally important..."
-ibid

And they are correct! All of the laws in the Old Covenant are equal. Why? Because they are all terms of a covenant. They are covenant law. All of them. This is how James can say:

(JAS. 2: 10) For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.

The law that bars Gentiles from observing Passover (EXO. 12: 43-49) is equally binding as the law that says it can only be observed in Jerusalem (DEU. 16: 5-7). Are you keeping Passover? Yes. Are you a Gentile? Yes. STOP! You've violated the law. Are you keeping it in Jerusalem? No. STOP! You've violated the law.

If you are keeping the Ten, but not keeping some other portion of law you don't think is important, then you've violated it all. If you say you need to observe a Holy Day, but don't do all that the law says must be done on that day, then you have not followed the law but you've violated the law.

People who believe they are observing the law by keeping some cherry-picked selection of laws are forgetting that all the whole body of laws is one unit, indivisible. If you stumble in any of it, you’re guilty of all of it.

If you’re not keeping all the law, you’re not keeping the law at all (GAL. 3: 10).

And once you’ve failed, you’ve failed. The law has no provision for forgiveness of a willful sin. For each and every last one of us - except Jesus Christ Himself - it’s already too late. We've already failed. Further failed attempts will not help you.

The good news for us sinners is - when the Covenant ended, the terms dissolved.

Anyone who says the Ten Commandments continue on to today has misunderstood how a covenant works, and misunderstood that the Old Covenant has ended and has been dissolved (HEB. 8: 13). Law gone. End of story. The terms of a covenant do not and cannot continue beyond the termination of the covenant. That was Paul's entire point in Romans 7: 1-6. If the New Covenant has any similarities to the Old (and it does) it is not because the terms came forward, but because similar yet completely new terms were created.

Think of it this way. If you get married you are bound to that covenant so long as you both shall live. But one sad day, your spouse passes away. My condolences on your loss. Eventually, your heart finds new life and you get married again. Once again, you are bound to that covenant so long as you both shall live. You are in the same condition as the first marriage. Why?

A) Because the second marriage is really just a continuation of the first, and the terms of the first marriage "came forward", or,
B) Because all marriages have similar terms because they have similar reasons to exist, but this is a brand new marriage and not a continuation of the first in any sense?

The answer is B. The first is gone, dissolved, no longer existing, but the second is going to be similar just because of the nature of it. And so it is with the two Great Covenants.

Paul's uses marriage as an example in Romans 7: 1-4. His point is the Old Covenant is gone. You have died in baptism, and the law has no hold on you any longer.

This is where the excuse-making starts up.

People will claim the law is eternally binding, they proof text "not one jot or tittle", they make up fantasies about British Israelism, etc etc.
We have several posts addressing these excuses and workarounds. Try reading our series on Common Legalist Arguments or "Two Trees - Two Covenants".
Some people even go so far as to deny there is a New Covenant. That is patently ridiculous.
But all of these excuses fall down flat when we inspect them fairly and honestly, from a neutral standpoint.

DO WE NEED TO KEEP THE TEN?

No.

The Ten Commandments are terms of the Old Covenant, and the Old Covenant is gone so the Ten are gone. We do not have to "keep" the Ten Commandments. Jesus died and it is gone for all, you died with Him in baptism so it is gone for you, and it was confirmed in Acts 15 & 21 that the law is not necessary for new converts. You do not need to keep the Ten Commandments.

"Wait! What!? Now I know you've lost your mind, xHWA!" [rips garments]

Hold on! Don't tear your garments yet. Hear me out.

People think they must keep Old Covenant laws, like the Ten, first because they don't understand covenants (which is why I started there), second because that is what they were told and they haven't thought it through or haven't heard the other side (which hopefully this article is going to help you do), and third because they find it difficult to argue against a law that says something like You shall not murder. Let's look at that.

"How can you not keep that law? Christians don't murder! Is it ok for me to sleep with your wife?"

I used to say that same thing, and I thought it was clever, too. It is true that it is not acceptable to murder, steal, bear false witness, or commit adultery in the New Covenant ...but not because of the Ten Commandments. It has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments.

"xHWA, you're contradicting yourself. You don't have to keep them, but you do have to keep them?"

This is no contradiction. The law is gone, but morality remains.
I recommend Miller Jones' article "Washed, Sanctified, Justified, and Glorified in Jesus".

Oh, bet your backside morality remains!! Revelation 21: 8 is not the verse the "Buddy Christ" type like to cite. On the other hand, legalists assume the Old Covenant law is the only place we can find morality. That is not so!

"There is another."
-Yoda (It's not a Vader quote, but it will have to do.)

The Old and the New have similarities, but not because laws from the Old have come forward. How can the two be similar without the laws coming forward? Because they have the same author. There is something above and beyond the law. It has nothing to do with the Old Covenant law, and everything to do with love.

(ROM. 13: 10) Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
(JAS. 2: 8) "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you do well."
(I COR. 13) [read the whole chapter]

The terms of the two Great Covenants have similarities, not because they are the same, nor because anything "came forward", but because above them and beyond them is one and the same principle of love.

"But x, all the Commandments are reiterated in the New Testament."

All except the Sabbath command, you mean. This does not indicate nine of the Ten have come forward. It indicates the same principle of love dictates both Covenants.

When the Ten are mentioned in the New Testament, they are being used as examples. If you look closely, you will see the Apostles quoting the Old Covenant regularly. That doesn't mean it all comes forward. We just read Romans 13: 10, but let's read verses just prior:

(ROM. 13: 8-9) 8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Do you see how Paul is just quoting them to make a point? He isn't bringing them forward, he is showing how love fulfills them. His point is love, not law. Even when James quotes from the Ten in James 2, his point is really about mercy. Isn't mercy really about love? Read James 2: 8 again. The Apostles use the law to help us understand a point, then direct our eyes above the law, to something greater - to love.

Where did the Apostles get this idea? They got it from Jesus.

(LUK. 10: 25-28) 25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?” 27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’ ” 28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”

The lawyer was quoting Deuteronomy 6: 4-5 and Leviticus 19: 18. These are the two great commandments. Jesus responds, "do this [love] and you will live.” Jesus reiterates this same thing in Mark 12:

(MAR. 12: 29-31) 29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. 31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.

Remember, the Ten are mistranslated as "commandments". These two which Jesus cites, He calls  commandments. They are greater than the Ten. Greater than the Ten?? Yes! It is no coincidence this information is recorded twice.
And where did Jesus get this idea? From His nature.

(I JON. 4: 7-8) 7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Two different covenants, for two different peoples, for two different purposes - both initiated by one and the same God, who IS love. Of course they are going to have similarities because of God. That moral nature is most certainly reflected in the Old Covenant law. God gave commandments and statues for Israel's good because He loves. Same as now.

At the outset of this post, I emphasized how the Old Covenant is gone. Here, I emphasize how it is similar to the New. I do this so we can discuss something.

I think this is where people stumble. Most everyone understands that there is a need for morality both in the Old and the New Covenants. Something deep inside them just seems to know this. They see that morality itself in its essence has not changed. They know murder was always wrong and always will be (so long as there is mortality). They see points in the Old are practically identical to points in the New. They know that morality is an attribute that flows directly from God's own being. And here they get confused, stumbling over how moral law does not continue forward. The thinking goes like this: "God is eternal, so morality is eternal, so the moral law must be eternal." On the surface, it seems very reasonable. But no.
We went over that in the article "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VI".

The answer to this puzzle is not that the moral law comes forward, but that love is eternal, and love is expressed in very similar ways in both Covenants, even if that isn't obvious.

Love predated the law. Love was in the law. Love is above the law. Love continues past the law.

As we see in Luke, even the lawyer knew the real crux of the law. This was during the Old Covenant period. He read the law and saw the most important parts were to love God and love your neighbor - in the Old Covenant period. That isn't obvious, so this guy was astute. He chose love, and the Author agreed. What this clearly means is moral law was always a subset of love. Jesus said this very thing.

(MAT. 22: 40) On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

In the New Covenant, we are called to look higher than the law. We are called to participate in the essence of our Lord, as part of His spiritual body. We are not called to participate in laws, but directly in that moral nature of God. God doesn't need the law to be moral, and neither does a mature Christian. You don't need the law to be moral any more than you need a shadow to cast a body (COL. 2: 16).
You need love. You need to participate in Him. And how do we participate in him? Faith!

The New Covenant laws are faith and love.

When the scribe reiterated what Jesus said, what was our Lord's response? "You are not far from the Kingdom of God" (v. 34). Not that he had reached it, but that he was close. His law keeping didn't get him there, just like the Rich Young Ruler who kept the law but went away when Jesus showed him there was more to it. Or think of the Pharisees who kept the law fastidiously yet Jesus had little praise for them. Why? Because they were all missing key ingredients. The scribe and the ruler had law but not faith, and the Pharisees had law but not love. They all went away.
For all their law keeping, they still went away.

Now that we've looked at similarities, perhaps it might help to illustrate differences one more time.

Is it ok to rape, or to be arrogant and demeaning, or to do a 'hit and run', or to do a 'bait and switch', or to entrap someone, or to kidnap someone, or to bully someone into harming themselves, or to gaslight someone, or to abandon your spouse, or to take bribes, or to judge unfairly, or to charge someone full price for shoddy work? No! Yet, I don't see any of that listed in the Ten Commandments. Read the Ten again. Guess what's not there: deceit. Is deceit wrong, then? I bet you are going to say 'yes'. Why? Because you just know? No. Because it violates love! You can blow a mile-wide crater into morality and not violate the Ten Commandments, but you will have violated love every single time.
So, which do you suppose is the superior moral system?

DON'T WE KEEP THE TEN ANYWAY?

"Tell me this, xHWA. If we are loving, and love has the same ends as keeping the Ten Commandments - we are loyal to God, we aren't murdering, bearing false witness, stealing, or committing adultery - then, aren't we keeping the Ten Commandments?"
Fantastic question! Yes! ...and no. It depends on your approach.

If you approach this from the perspective of grace and faith, yes, love fulfills the spirit of the law. You have kept every requirement of the Ten without needing the Ten. You've done it! Welcome to mature Christianity. So, yes.
But if you approach this from the perspective of legalism, no, due to our sinful nature you have failed and the law brings a curse to you.

"Come on, x, you're contradicting yourself. I can fail to keep the law by keeping the law?"

Correct. That was no contradiction. It really does matter. 

If it didn't, then Paul wouldn't have written Galatians. He wouldn't have said things like, "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?" (GAL. 4: 21) Or, "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." (GAL. 5: 4)

Those are heavy words! Your approach matters.

Is that what you think you've done, kept the Commandments? You sat on your hands one day out of seven? You didn't murder, so therefore you've kept the commandment? Or you didn't commit adultery, therefore you've kept the commandment? How easy it would be if that were the standard! But it's not.

In Matthew 5: 21-30, Jesus shows that sin is of the heart. Violation of the Commandments happens long before you ever act out anything. If you lust, you're done. If you anger without cause, you're done. Game over. Fail! The game is already over for you. There is no going back to the starting line because the game is over.
By that standard, we've all failed .. me too! I've miserably failed. Worse than you, I'd bet. For all my blogging and preaching about love, I've blown it for the law. I am guilty under the law! Mea culpa! And I have no hope left in the law.
More law, or rather more failure, will get us all precisely nowhere.

All this talk about we've kept the Commandments just because we didn't kill is nonsense. Herbert Armstrong knew this. He preached this very thing, and he was right! (See? We admit when he was right.)
But then he would go on to say in the New Covenant the law is harder. No. Wrong. Matthew 5 is during the Old Covenant period, not the New. This was always the standard. Just read Zechariah 8: 17.
Herbert Armstrong also taught, "Jesus made the law harder to keep, then provides us the Holy Spirit so we can keep it." Again, wrong. Why don't you keep it, then? Is the Holy Spirit a failure? Do you not have enough Holy Spirit? Why are you praying for forgiveness if you've done such a good job? Why are you looking towards the Day of Atonement? Because you know this fails just as much as I do. We go over this in "Common Legalist Arguments - Part I".

Making it harder was not what Jesus was doing. He was merely stating what the standard had been all along. He was making His audience aware of what the standard actually was.
It was always this hard!

No wonder Isaiah says, "But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags" (ISA. 64: 6). No wonder Peter calls law keeping, "...a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" (ACT. 15: 10).

That's right. Even at our best, we do not rate. Not even close. You might think you're keeping the Ten, but there's a decent chance you're not. Did we not just read Paul, who said, "you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace" (GAL. 5: 4)?

The same Paul who said that also said this:

(ROM. 9: 30-32) 30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

And that is why Paul said this:

(GAL. 2: 18) For if I build again those things which I destroyed [the law], I make myself a transgressor.

Israel failed to keep the law by keeping the law. We will fail to keep the law by keeping the law.

So, this is a yes and a no. Approach this through legalism and you will fail, but approach it through faith and grace and you will fulfill the whole law.

Now that I've said that, I want to make something abundantly clear ---
I am not saying that merely keeping a law is what causes you to fail. For example, merely keeping a seventh-day Sabbath does not cause you to fail. People on one side say keeping Sunday is a sin. People on the other side say keeping Saturday is a sin. Both are wrong. What I am saying is that looking to the law for righteousness causes you to fail. For example, demanding that Christians must keep a seventh-day Sabbath, and thus holding yourself up as superior to others because you do, will cause you to fail. Once the idea of "earn" or "merit" or "qualify" is added to law, you've failed. If keeping a day helps you feel closer to God, do it. If you are a Jewish convert and you see the law as your heritage, do it. If eating pork harms your conscience, don't do it. Only don't think it gets you anywhere with God. And by all means, do not judge and condemn your fellow Christian who disagrees (ROM. 14: 6).

THE ONLY WAY

"But x, you are violating Matthew 5: 19 by breaking the commandments and teaching others to do so."

Au contraire!

There is but one way to accomplish our goals, oh beloved of God. One and only one. There is no other. That way is faith.

The scribes and Pharisees were fastidious! If you recall my post "Tithing - You're Doing It Wrong" you see how how fastidious they were. They were the penultimate law keepers, yet they blew it. Our Lord's harshest criticism, as always throughout the Bible, was reserved for the leadership. They failed the law because they pursued the law as an end unto itself. They kept the Sabbath yet failed at Sabbath-keeping, as Aphraphat the Syrian abundantly pointed out (see the article "Quartodecimans - Were They Law-Keepers?"). Why? The law was more important than mercy. They neglected the weightier matters of faith and love.

Even so, Jesus said this about them:

(MAT. 5: 20) For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Why?
You see, He was paying them a backhanded compliment (that means it wasn't really a compliment). All of their law keeping, which the people were impressed by, didn't impress Jesus. The righteousness of law keeping is not what He wanted.

How can our righteousness exceed theirs, then? The one way and only way is the righteousness of faith ... the righteousness of Jesus Christ. How does Jesus' righteousness make you more righteous than the Pharisees? Let Paul tell us.

(II COR. 5: 21) For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

His righteousness becomes our righteousness by faith.
By faith not law?
Yes! The righteousness God seeks is not our righteousness, but HIS own righteousness attributed to us by faith.

(PHP. 9: 9-11) 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

In Phillipians 9, Paul, one of the very Pharisees that Jesus was talking about, gives us a long list of his genealogical, educational, and legal bona fides. He counts them all as dung! Why? Because no matter how good a human is, no matter how credentialed, no matter how careful, NONE of that can compare to the righteousness of God. God's own righteousness can only come to us one way: by faith.

(ROM. 1: 17) For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
(ROM. 3: 20-22) 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe...
(ROM. 4: 5) However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
(2 PET. 1: 1) Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours
(GAL. 3: 10-14) 10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Paul mentions Abraham. What of Abraham?

(ROM. 4: 13-14) 13 It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless.

It was always by faith. The whole time.

It is the righteousness of Jesus Christ that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. In Matthew 5: 20, Jesus was really talking about Himself. Only by being joined with Him through faith can His righteousness be gifted to us, and there alone can we surpass the scribes and Pharisees. Unless your righteousness is really HIS righteousness attributed to you by faith, you will by no means enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Remember, our righteousness is like filthy rags, and Jesus did not make the law harder because that was always the standard. Well, the standard is a lot harder yet.

(MAT. 5: 48) Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

"Oh, xHWA! How in Heaven or on earth can imperfect beings like us possibly be perfect like God the Father is perfect? I can't do that!"

You're right. You can't. It is impossible
...except when the blood of Christ washes us clean and God's own righteousness is attributed to us when we become one with Jesus through faith.

It is the only way.

So, cheer up! Lift up your face to the Son and be glad. He has you in His hands. Just believe.

(MAT. 19: 26b) “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

If you are still looking at your shortcomings and wondering what this all means, you need to understand something.
As with many other things in the Bible, it is partly completed now and fully completed in the future. It's not that we are perfect in this lifetime, but when God looks at us He sees His own perfection attributed to us. That's the agreement. It is attributed to us until such a time when we will be fully made perfect (EPH. 1: 13-14). He sees our potential. A potential that is not achievable without faith. So be content for now, and believe.

"...by faith from first to last."

You are one with Him by faith. By faith you are attached to Jesus the Vine, and you, the branch off that Vine, will bear fruit. First faith, then fruit. Or, if you will, first faith, then works.

Saving faith → Grafted in → In-dwelling of Holy Spirit → Attributed righteousness of God → Do works of love → Bear fruits of love.  That is how it works in the New Covenant.

Am I throwing Matthew 5: 19 out the window? No. I am not telling you to break the commandments. I am telling you the only way you can possibly hope to keep them as expected.

CONCLUSION

There is a confusion going on of the Ten Commandments and the word commandments in the New Testament. The Ten never should have been translated commandments in the first place. The word commandments in the N.T. can be any command, and most often does not refer to the Ten.

The Ten are covenant law, but Old Covenant law not New Covenant law. They are only 10 out of 613 equal terms. Break any one and you've broken them all. Those who are under the Old Covenant must keep it's terms (and that is precisely nobody). Those who are under the New Covenant must keep its terms (and that is all Christianity). If you try to keep the Old Covenant while in the New Covenant you are sitting on a fence satisfying neither.

What are the laws for the New Covenant? Faith and love. Law is not the essential component, love is. Love, inspired and directed by the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you because you are joined to Jesus by faith. Never has righteousness come from the law. Jesus took your sins on Himself so He could attribute His righteousness to you by faith. This is the only way any of us can achieve the righteousness God is looking for: His own. It is the only way.

The moral standards in the Old aren't really that different from the New. There are definite similarities. Those similarities do not come from law, but from the same source as the law: love. When you look at a New Covenant person vs and Old Covenant person, you won't see much moral difference. But try to achieve this by law, and you will fail.

If you've read and understood this post, you should re-read Galatians. I recommend you do that as soon as possible.

James seems to be the star Apostle of the law-minded person. Why, Fred Coulter even wrote his own version of the Bible so he could put James before Paul. (No, that isn't the 'original' order.) James seems to say Old Covenant law things, but when we look closely, he isn't really saying that at all. In the end, James concludes his idea with this:

(JAS. 2: 12) So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.

This is the second time James mentions the "perfect law of liberty" (JAS. 1: 25). Where will you find that law? Not in the Old Covenant! This is a New Covenant idea.
James turns out to be speaking of the same things Paul did, and what I am trying to speak right now. Faith, love, liberty, grace, mercy, charity, patience, forgiveness... these are the New Covenant standards. Not individual laws, but big concepts. Concepts that flow straight from God's nature.

New Covenant standards are spiritually mature standards. Mature is not easy. Adulting is hard! It's not simple. I am not saying "remove the law and life gets simple." Nor am I saying "remove the law and Christianity becomes a Wild West free-for-all, where you do exhaust your every lust and turn to Jesus for the forgiveness you knew you would need afterward." I am saying, follow the guidance of the in-dwelling Holy Spirit. If you do that, you will no longer need laws.

So, do you have to keep the Ten? No. But if you step into the New Covenant in faith and follow the Holy Spirit in love, you will fulfill the spirit of the whole law, and with Christ's own righteousness attributed to you. In faith and love, you will keep them in a way you never could if you just attempted to keep them to the letter.

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

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

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

Honor Thy Father

Within the mindset of Armstrongism, from its heritage in Adventism and even to the COG splinter groups of this day, there is a pervasive belief that in order to honor Jesus one must withhold honor from the Father. This is a clumsy way to put it, but the spirit of what I am trying to convey is true. Armstrongism sees honor as zero sum. In other words, there is only so much of it to go around. It is the overall view that all honor should rightfully go to the Father, and since all honor should rightfully go to the Father in order to honor something other than the Father – like Jesus - one almost borrows against the Father to give to the Son. It is a “Rob Peter to pay Paul” situation. I am not going to dive into the background on what builds up to this conclusion, suffice it for now to simply say that it is. This is one idea shown in Martha's post "COGWA On The Resurrection: That's Nice, Now What?".

As a result, we often hear from Armstrongists that mainstream Christians pay far too much attention to Jesus and not nearly enough attention to the Father. Mainstream Christians might say that the COGs take Jesus out of His box once a year at Passover. If there is almost a guilty sensation in honoring the Son because it somehow diminishes the Father, how much less then could an Armstrongist agree that honoring a person can honor bring honor to the Son? Sadly, the view that mainstream Christianity has of Jesus and even our calling as Christians cannot be fully understood while laboring under the COG view of honoring God.

Is this “rob the Father to pay the Son” view Biblical? Can you honor the Father without directly honoring the Father? Can we honor the Son by honoring pitiful, lowly humans? Let’s look and see.

(I JON. 2: 23) Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Whatever you do to one, you do to the other. This is how God views things. Thus is the relationship between Father and Son. There is no such thing as having more of the Father or of the Son. It’s a package deal. There are many other verses to demonstrate this. The main thing to glean from this is that to honor the Father it is required of us to honor the Son. This is how we honor the Father. This is the method.

(JON. 5: 18-23) 18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. 19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

The Son should be honored just as the Father is honored. It is commanded it is right and it is just. Perhaps the COGWA could remember this in their next talk about being "Father-Centered."

There is no such thing as having too much emphasis on the Son. To emphasize the Son is to emphasize the Father. To honor the Son is to honor the Father. This is how the Father is honored. Why do we honor the Son? Because of the Father. It is in order to glorify the Father that the Son came. It is in order to glorify the Father that we glorify the Son. No one goes to the Father except through the Son (JON. 14: 6). The Son does not steal from the Father. There is no taking from the Father to give to the Son. All that is, be it tangible or intangible, is the Fathers – and the Father has given all to the Son. That includes glory and honor. Why? Why does this not take away from the Father? Because the Son then turns right around and returns all to the Father, so that the Father may be all in all.

So, the common saying that mainstream Christianity honors the Son too much is not correct. It is untrue. It is a misunderstanding of the Father and the Son, it is a misunderstanding of honoring the Father and the Son, and it is a misunderstanding of what we are called to do as the spiritual Body of Christ.

So, if we honor the Father by honoring the Son, we must ask how do we best honor the Son?

We honor the Son by following the Holy Spirit whom the Son sends. We honor the Son in spirit and in truth, with sincere hearts. We honor the Son with our intentions and thoughts and words which flow into our deeds. What deeds? The Old Covenant law? No. With acts of charity towards those whom He has created. We honor the Son by loving those whom the Son loves.

This is what James speaks of, that faith alone is dead faith. We need to do for those whom Jesus loves. We need to actively love those whom Jesus loves. We need acts of charity. Armstrongism teaches that James is merely speaking of an attempt to observe the Old Covenant law, but that is not what James speaks of. James comes right out and tells us what he is speaking of:

(JAS. 1: 27) Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

James speaks of our true religion; our service to Jesus. What is that service to Jesus? Serving others.

When Jesus restored Peter, what did Jesus say? If you love Me, tend My flock (JON. 21: 15-17). He didn't say "If you love Me, ignore Me and concentrate on the Father." Nor did He say, "If you love Me, tithe and we'll call it even." No. If we love Jesus, we should do well for those whom He loves. The prescribed method of returning love to Jesus is acts of love to other humans. We honor our Lord by honoring others.

For years, as I attended the WCG and later my COG splinter group, I heard about how James talks of the law, and how everything else had to be seen in the light of this interpretation of James. But James isn’t speaking of the Old Covenant law. James is speaking of letting faith and the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit have its expression in our lives. James is speaking of charitable actions to others. James is speaking of our reasonable acts of worship. James is talking about how to love Jesus by loving those around us. James is talking about our religion.

Several times in this article I have compared and contrasted Armstrongism to mainstream Christianity. Does that mean mainstream Christianity always get this right? HA! No!! Anyone misleads you who says to you that all we need is faith in Jesus Christ. There is more to it than that simple phrase. This is precisely what James speaks about. Faith must have its expression in our lives. Good thing that most people who say this know there is a lot more to it, and both their lives and their fruit bear this out.

I am not speaking of law but of love. Old Covenant law does not equal love. To love is to fulfill the law. In fact to love is to fulfill the spirit of the entire law. All of it. It’s the only way to do this. The only way to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees is to love. But to keep the law is not to love. The Pharisees had the law, but they did not have this kind of love. They honored God with their mouths and their law-keeping, but not with their hearts. Love fulfills the law, but the law does not fulfill love.

The point is that in order to express your love to Jesus you must pass on to others this love that He has given you. His gifts to us – none of us merit them in the slightest, and none of us are able to repay them. So how do you respond to the love of God? Simple. You believe in Jesus and love one another.

When I search the New Testament in the NKJV for “love one another” I get quite a few great hits from all over. I’ll give you one:

(I JON. 4: 11) Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

If God so loved us, we ought to love one another. Sums it up.

This is what it means to live as a Christian. Bear in mind that the church is the Body of Christ. What we do to one another that we also do to Him.

(MAT. 20: 37-40) 37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

(Mat. 20: 44-45) 44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’

Here is the summary of all that I am saying - you honor the Father by honoring Jesus, and honor Jesus by honoring those whom Jesus loves.

To honor the Son is not to diminish from the Father, and to honor a human is not necessarily to diminish from the Son. I affirm that it is not possible for an Armstrongist to fully understand mainstream Christianity without accepting this Biblical truth.

Is this charity and love to go to the people in your COG splinter only? We were taught as much within Armstrongism many, many times in the past. I know it is still taught today. I personally sat through more than just one sermon instructing us to actively withhold charity from “the world” for one reason or the other. We were instructed that to be charitable to “the world” is to defy God. (Do all COG groups teach this? No. But most do. Kudos to those who do not.)

Are those big-named and many-titled men that lead large splinter groups really correct when they say to shun everyone that doesn’t go to their group? Are they right that they are Philidelphia and everyone else is Laodicea? Are they justified in splitting up families and indirectly causing suicides? Does that teaching really mesh with what you read in the Bible?

No.

(MAT. 5: 43-47) 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?

No, not just to those in your splinter group. Not just to other Armstrongists. Everyone! Everywhere. Every human being bears the image of God, and we are called to love them all.

How can you love the people with whom you disagree if you can’t even love those with whom you do agree? Oh, how the COG groups fight! How they strive against one another! What do you really disagree on? I mean really. Your current glorious leader? The importance of Herbert Armstrong? The timing of the Wave Sheaf offering? The date on which Jesus will return? Seriously. If we had to quantify what the COG groups truly disagree on, it wouldn’t be more than 2% of the overall body of doctrine. Yet you can’t seem to love one another. Not just failing to love, but actively tearing down.

Since your COG splinter teaches you to observe the law (some of it anyway) I want to challenge you. I want to challenge you to implement this honor of the Father into your life. While you go about intending to observe the law, be mindful of the law in its New Covenant, spiritual, royal fulfillment – by that I mean faith and love. Don’t just go to church services on Saturday. Go out of your way to be kind to someone each and every time. Not the same person and not in the same way each time. Go out of your way. At the same time, accept the help and generosity of others. At the time I write this, Pentecost is coming up. More people means more opportunity to love and serve.

Then go out and do the same for people who aren't in your church.

Pray to God that He grant you His love. Then pray to God that He grant you the will and opportunity to give it all away. You cannot just take this up on your own. It has to be granted. Then be a living sacrifice. Do as James exhorted us to do. Live pure and undefiled religion. Be a Christian. Love one another.

In honoring others you honor the Son and through the Son you honor the Father.

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