Polluting the Sabbath

(Isaiah 56:2) Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

I have witnessed Sabbath keepers cite this passage, while eliminating the last part of it that follows the comma in English. They believe “any” work pollutes the Sabbath, and not just evil works, seeing as Jesus made a distinction in this regard, where good works are lawful on the Sabbath. It is evil works that polluted the Sabbath; not good works. Evil works that are already evil works. Evil works are sinful works, and this brings us to another verse of Scripture Sabbath keepers treat like Isaiah 56:2, truncating it also:

(1 John 3:4b) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Sabbath keepers routinely omit the first half of the verse. Sin; an event that is already evil, transgresses ALSO the law, where the English second half, poorly translated, is redundant but with a twist when you excise the first half so that it appears to say something else entirely. Instead of sin also transgressing the law, transgressing the law now labels whatever transgresses the law as sin, thereby reversing the order and meaning of the passage.

This is how desperate Sabbath keepers are in order to negate any good works on the Sabbath as lawful on the Sabbath; their fake sabbath, where they reserve the right to dictate what works are acceptable on their fake sabbath, and what works are not, thereby negating a basic teaching and truth conveyed by Jesus who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; not the Sabbath.

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

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 Declared Good Works Lawful on the Sabbath

It sounds reasonable enough, until you factor in the rest of what He said, where He contrasted good works with evil works, with these two classifications being the only standard to judge by in relation to the Sabbath.

The implications of this declaration in its totality is unacceptable to Sabbatarianism, where the Sabbath is perceived to be a nearly complete temporary cessation of work over a 24 hour period of time, where the Sabbath commandment goes so far as to include “ALL” work, regardless of categorization.

Now, there exists this descriptive of Jesus between good and evil works in relation to the Sabbath, where good works are lawful; not a sin, and evil works that are a sin, on the Sabbath, and always a sin, regardless.

Adventism treats this disparity with hypocrisy.

Note that they created two categorizations of law; “moral” and “ceremonial” – a classification that finds absolutely no biblical support. But now, with the Sabbath and the classification of two kinds of works; one lawful and the other unlawful on the Sabbath, made by God Incarnate Himself, and they balk!

Point out to them when they talk about the law; the “whole” law as stated by James and they insist the “whole” law is just the Decalogue. Then they flip when it comes to two categories of works related to the Sabbath. There is only one classification of work on their sabbath where any work is an evil work, due to the day, unless a particular work meets their criteria for exempt work, ironically in some cases being based also on the one working, such as doctors and nurses working in hospitals.

Adventism has their own categorization of works, unspoken and unwritten, where an otherwise good work done any other day of the week becomes evil and sin on their sabbath. Same work, different classification based on what day it is. Work is not judged according to its own merit, or the one working if they are non-Adventist.

The hypocrisy is so rife, you can almost smell it.

According to Jesus, the “Lord of the Sabbath” there are these two categories of work because there are two categories of people working; good people, and evil people. He uses analogy and typology to explain; an explanation also ignored by Adventism and Adventists; rejected by them in favor of their own definitions and classifications.

There are good trees (people) and bad trees (people) where the good produce good fruits/works and the bad produce bad (evil) fruits/works.

Pretty simple and strait-forward. But simple doesn’t compute with Adventists and Adventism, especially when trying to retain a theology that contradicts the teachings of Christ Jesus; God Incarnate.

Good is always good, and evil is always evil. However, some people will teach and believe good can be evil, and evil can be good when it comes to works; like working on the Sabbath.

So a “simple” question in response to the Adventist take on sin being an otherwise good work done on the Sabbath — who calls good, evil? A good person? Or an evil person?

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

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' Ultimatum

Jesus confronted the Pharisees with an ultimatum. He gave commandments and decrees that were contrary to the law. How people responded demonstrated whether they viewed the law greater than God who stood before them, or that He was the ultimate source of truth.

The First and Greatest commandment in the law was that a person have a total love and devotion for God. This then was their test of that, where no man can serve two masters, and where one is loved, and the other hated.

The Pharisees served and obeyed the law. Jesus said they hated Him and the Father in Heaven, for they chose the law and a love and dedication to the law; not God.

We witness today the same scenario play out. Jesus decreed good works lawful, on the Sabbath, as contrasted to evil works. The decree could not have been plainer: Two categories of works, performed by two categories of people; those with good hearts, and those with evil hearts (hearts, minds, souls).

Evil hearted people will opt for what they believe benefits them, looking at things from a strictly physical perspective; not a spiritual one. They in turn choose the Sabbath over the Lord of the Sabbath, thinking God is more interested in blind obedience; a blind faith, instead of a living faith that expresses itself through action, and not the inaction of doing nothing one day a week.

(Matthew 25:41-46) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Jesus came to the Jews. He walked among them; the ‘people of the law’ who boasted in the law and Sabbath… the same ones who passed by the wounded man on the road to Jericho.

Who does the will of God here? The Sabbath keeper who is too busy doing nothing to stop and help another in need? Or one not under the law; not keeping the Sabbath who is quick to help others in their distress and need? It is a simple thing to stop and give a thirsty person water.

The criteria here Jesus cites about who goes into the kingdom of God, eternally, and those who do not, and the law has nothing to do with it. It is those who express their love and compassion for others. Love and compassion; expressions of the Spirit, due to the presence of the Holy Spirit, given to those who repent and believe the Gospel.. of Christ Jesus; God Incarnate, due to having a love of Him to the exclusion of all else, especially the law; the law people were kept under UNTIL the revelation of faith, in God — not the law.

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

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

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

Answering Douglas Beaumont On New Testament Canon Formation

Discussion:

This piece examines flaws in (Catholic) Douglas Beaumont’s reasoning in critiquing a book by (Protestant) Michael J. Kruger about the formation of the New Testament canon, highlighting how rhetorical maneuvering and imprecise distinctions repeatedly substitute for substantive engagement with the issues at hand.

"It [the book Canon Revisited] is well written, accessible, and is probably the best hope Protestants have for grounding the canon outside the authoritative Church that defined it.”

"Best hope" is a funny label for an argument that only looks weak after one has already handed Rome the trophy. And no, Kruger's book is not the Protestants’ "best hope’"; he is simply one voice in a long line of coherent Protestant accounts that never needed the premise Beaumont smuggled in. See here and here for evidence.

“Kruger begins his survey of the Community‑Determined model by looking at the Historical‑Critical approach… He then turns to the Catholic view which he says shares a common methodology. This smacks of well‑poisoning.”

False. If the Roman Catholic view itself depends on the church's shared, long-time reception of certain books as canonical, then Kruger's comparison is not "well-poisoning" at all. He is simply describing what Rome's model already admits.

“Nor is the Catholic view that canonicity is ‘imposed’ upon the writings.” 

This is Beaumont trying to dodge the obvious. If the church declares which books belong in Scripture, then it is imposing canonical status in the straightforward sense of the term. His attempt to redefine “imposed” so that it excludes the very act he is defending is a transparent evasion.

“A book can be one without the other.” 

This line is part of his long, unnecessary lecture on canon versus inspiration. He treats this elementary distinction as if he discovered it yesterday. Worse, he never shows a single place where Kruger confuses the two. It is a lecture delivered to no one who needed it, padding out an argument that lacks substance.

“Kruger believes there is a second model within Catholicism that is often ‘bundled together without distinction.’” 

Beaumont tries to refute this by saying “the church that produced the biblical writings are not the same [members of] the church who determined the canon.” This is not a refutation. It is an admission that Kruger’s observation is correct. Beaumont agrees with Kruger while pretending to disagree, which is one of his recurring habits.

“The different affirmations Kruger lists, however, do not necessarily constitute a second model.” 

Douglas Beaumont’s defense here is simply hand‑waving. He never explains why the distinctions he admits do not amount to separate conceptual models. He just asserts it. His argument is little more than “I don’t like the conclusion, therefore it’s wrong.”

“The fact that a 28th book “would never satisfy Catholic concerns” is not a Catholic problem though, because it is not Catholics who require the canon to be revealed in Scripture."

Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. Kruger did not say that it was a Catholic problem. Beaumont is arguing with a phantom because he cannot land a punch on the actual argument. His response is a deflection, not a rebuttal.

“Either way, the canon is never just a ‘given’ as a starting point.” 

This is one of Douglas Beaumont’s more ironic lines. He states a truth that undermines his own attempt to portray the Catholic position as immune to the very difficulty he admits. If the canon is never “just a given,” then the Catholic model faces the same epistemic question Kruger raises. Beaumont simply refuses to acknowledge it.

“Paul says the church was built on the foundation of apostolic people – not apostolic teachings.” 

This is semantic gymnastics. Apostolic people taught apostolic teaching. The distinction is so thin it collapses under its own weight. Beaumont’s argument here is the kind of thing one writes when one has run out of substantive points and begins slicing theological hairs to avoid conceding anything.

“The fact remains, then, that the New Testament… was dependent on the church, but not vice‑versa.” 

This is Douglas Beaumont’s attempt to turn chronology into authority. The New Testament being written within the church does not magically grant the church epistemic primacy. His conclusion simply does not follow from his premise.

“First, we see from the New Testament itself that at the time of Christ, there was no single, authoritative canon.” 

 This is historically selective. It only shows that canon formation can be messy. Beaumont’s conclusion does not follow from his own evidence.

“Presumably, had the OT canon been seen as a big issue, one of [the prophets] could have spoken up about it.” 

This is one of the weakest lines in the entire piece. Beaumont imagines prophets as if they were modern bloggers who would “speak up” if something mattered. It is theology by presumption, not argument, and it betrays a shallow grasp of Second Temple Judaism.

“Thus, Israel’s relation to the Old Testament is much like the church’s relation to the New Testament for the first 1,500 years of its existence.”

This analogy is strained. Israel’s canon debates were not structurally identical to Christian canon debates, and Beaumont provides no evidence that they were. He simply asserts the parallel and hopes the reader will not notice the lack of support.

“Kruger asks whether the church had a canon for the 1,500 years prior… He then states… that the church did, in fact, have a functioning canon long before Trent.” 

Douglas Beaumont tries to refute this by saying Trent was the first dogmatic definition. Kruger never claimed otherwise. Beaumont even admits, “no one disputes that the church had ‘functional’ (if unsettled) lists.” He is refuting a claim Kruger did not make.

“Statements marshaled to prove the contrary are being misread – probably due to the ‘canon / inspired’ confusion noted above.” 

This is Beaumont’s fallback explanation for everything: accuse the other side of confusion. Yet he never demonstrates the confusion. He simply repeats the accusation until he hopes it sticks.

“The Catholic church recognizes these distinctions and often uses them in its explication of doctrine.” 

This is Beaumont congratulating Rome for being nuanced while ignoring the fact that his own argumentation is not. He invokes scholastic categories without actually applying them rigorously. It is the intellectual equivalent of name‑dropping.

“The church does not ground its infallibility on the Bible… nor does the church tell people to believe it is infallible based on its own infallible authority.” 

This is Douglas Beaumont trying to dodge the circularity problem by asserting that the Roman Catholic Church’s claims are not circular. But his own explanation of infallibility is circular: the church is infallible because Christ made it infallible, and we know Christ made it infallible because the church teaches that Christ made it infallible. He has not escaped the circle; he has simply drawn it more gently.

“There cannot actually be a conflict between them.” 

This is Beaumont’s claim about Scripture and creation. It is a charming sentiment, but demonstrably false. His analogy is wishful thinking masquerading as argument, and it does nothing to support his claim that the church and Scripture share authority in a way that avoids Kruger’s dilemma.

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

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

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

For Paul, Jesus Is The Answer

Law, grace, works, faith, righteousness, and sin all come together in our relationship with God. 

---

I've been interested lately in the root causes of Sabbatarianism. For example, read my "Road To Sabbatarianism" series. I am not talking about how Sabbatarianism originally started back in the 1500s. I mean for people today. There are big challenges in writing about Sabbatarianism and the New Covenant. There is so much to go over. In my (at this point 18) years of writing, I've written countless individual articles addressing Sabbatarianism (Armstrongism, really) from various directions. Lately, I find myself consistently going back to the nature of righteousness. I feel that is the key. Sabbatarianism, given its emphasis on law, naturally believes sin and righteousness come from laws; the Old Covenant law, specifically. I disagree. I have tried in the past to demonstrate from the Bible that both sin and righteousness can exist apart from laws. Yet, even after all this, I still have a nagging feeling that there is something I have not written about fully; there is something important that I've missed.

Today's post is about law, faith, the nature of righteousness, Paul and Jesus. It all comes down to Jesus. He is sufficient. But to understand Jesus and the law, I need to explain something about Paul.

Let's start with Jesus, though.

HE'S KIND OF A BIG DEAL

In the past, I've mentioned Sabbatarianism tends to minimize Jesus. Most recognize Jesus as the second member of the Godhead, as the Messiah, as the Passover, and as the one who died so our sins could be forgiven, among other things. Yet, they minimize Him in certain important ways.
I find this unfortunate, because there is quite a bit to understand about Jesus.

He is the member of the Godhead who made the covenant with Israel; a covenant He promised to keep. Israel failed at their end, as predicted (DEU. 4:27). Usually, here is where I would head towards Jesus' death ending the Old Covenant. And it did. But today I want to go in a different direction and emphasize God's commitment to keep the covenant. It was unwavering. In fact, it goes beyond what most people realize.

In Matthew 2:14-15, Matthew, under inspiration from the Holy Spirit, associates Jesus with Hosea's words about Israel:

(HOS. 11:1) When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.

This verse has two equally valid interpretations: Israel and Jesus. It's not either/or; it's both/and. Prophecies are rarely just predictions of the future. They are usually actions that are reenacted later on. The nation of Israel experienced many things which Jesus, in His life and ministry, reenacted. Just for example - the Massacre of the Innocents, the calling from Egypt, the forty days of temptation in the wilderness, and His baptism in the Jordan. Israel was the type, and Jesus the antetype. Yet in all places where Israel failed, Jesus succeeded.

To put it quite bluntly: Jesus is the True Israel. The Israel of God.

As both the God who made the covenant and the True Israel who kept the covenant, He is the fulfillment of both ends of the deal. God's commitment was so thorough, He took it upon Himself to keep the covenant on Israel's behalf. Though the nation of Israel failed, He would not let that be the end of it. That is why I say God's commitment to keep the covenant goes beyond what most people realize. They know God kept His end of the covenant, and they know Jesus kept the law, but dots aren't usually connected that He also kept man's end of the Covenant. It has been kept. Perfectly. He fulfilled it. All of it. This has implications; implications that are not explored in Sabbatarianism.

Now, read this and really chew on it:

He is the law-keeper. 

He is the giver. He is the goal. He is the keeper. Mainstream Christianity and Sabbatarianism argue endlessly over the meaning of the word "end" in Romans 10:4: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Sabbatarians say He is the goal. Mainstream Christians say He is the completion. Guess what... you're both right!
It all pointed to Him; He is the ultimate intention of it; He is the final termination of it. All of it.

And now, read this and really chew on it:

In faith, you are one with Him.

Physical Israel did not keep the law perfectly; the True Israel did. They broke the Covenant; He kept it for them. And He kept it for all of us who join with Him.

Sabbatarians try to make Christianity into physical Israel in hopes of getting the law to apply to all mankind. It doesn't work. We do not become physical Israel; we become Spiritual Israel. When we are baptized, we do not join the physical nation of Israel; we join the Body of Christ. (For more, read "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VII" and "Acts 15 - What Was Debated? - Part I".) But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that by joining the Body of Christ we do join physical Israel. It still doesn't matter. You are only Israel because you've joined Jesus ...the One who fulfilled and then terminated the Covenant for you. There is nothing left in that Covenant for you to do.

I went back and forth in my mind over starting this post with Paul or starting it with Jesus. I decided to start with Jesus and then go to Paul. It seemed fitting. With those things we just reviewed in mind, let's go to Paul now, because what we just reviewed would come as no surprise to Paul.

PAUL'S PERSPECTIVE

Have you ever wondered how there can be such a dichotomy in how we understand Paul? In places, he seems to be so very much against works of the law, yet in other places, he seems to be very much for the law. Grace in one place, works in another. Law here; faith there. Mainstream Christianity emphasizing one part; Sabbatarianism emphasizing the other. Why is that?

The answer is because Saul was a believing Jew, a Pharisee of Pharisees, but once he encountered the Christ event, which he could not simply deny, he realized that everything he once knew had to be reconfigured to fit with the Christ event. Jesus Christ had fundamentally altered the game, and Paul - the very one who persecuted the church because he refused to believe the game could be altered - had to come to grips with this new reality. God had changed things, and it was all predicted in the Scriptures. Paul had the law, and Paul had grace, and Paul had Christ, then Paul had to understand how they all fit together. His solution: Jesus is the answer.

The Covenant was given to Israel, but they found themselves time and again under foreign control. The law was bringing about wrath. Is that all there was? If so, then how disappointing! How can Israel fulfill the promise to Abraham that in his seed all the world would be blessed if his seed were constantly in captivity (ROM. 2:24)? How Israel's soul must have longed and craved for something that would satisfy. They wondered aloud if God had abandoned them and His covenant. Lamentations 5:20 is but one of many examples. He had not! The Christ event is that thing which truly blesses, nourishes, satisfies, fulfills, and delights.

Everything that once revolved around Torah now had to be understood in a new way as revolving around Jesus the Christ. Because one who is greater than the Torah had come. This is the theme of the entire book of Hebrews (which most believe was not written by Paul, so it wasn't just Paul who understood this).

A great deal of the law, the psalms, and the prophets was about Him (LUK. 24:44). All of it now had to be reread and reinterpreted to be seen through the lens of the Christ event. What Paul had come to realize is that the only way for the law to be kept as God demanded was for God Himself to keep the law. Therefore, Christ is the giver, the goal, the keeper, the fulfiller, and the end of the law. If you want to truly observe the law, then the only way is to become one with the One who succeeded where all else failed. Become one with Christ through faith, and His righteousness, God's righteousness - which is not temporary, nor fickle, nor like filthy rags - the only righteousness that can truly satisfy even God Himself - will be yours. Not because of you and your failed attempts at law-keeping, but because of Him and His uncompromising success. It is counted to you by faith.

So this, grace-based and faith-based total fulfillment of the law by God, credited to us by faith, is the answer to why Paul in some places seems to advocate for the law but in other places seems to speak harshly against the law.
In Him, the law is finally kept and the Covenant is fully satisfied, and it could be dissolved at the death of the One who instituted it. Now, only the spirit of the law, the root purpose of the law, remains.

Paul tried to explain this many times. [I am going to put several verses here, and I do recommend you read them but I understand if you just skim. I apologize in advance.]

(COL. 2:11-17) 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

(PHP. 3:3-11) 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, 4 though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 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.

(ROM. 2: 25-29) 25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Do you see how Paul relies on Christ Jesus? Even for death and life.
Now, I ask you - how can anyone fulfill the letter of the law when they are not circumcised? Circumcision is in the law! Circumcision was the very first step toward the law. Even Armstrongism teaches this much. That is why Armstrong sought to avoid circumcision - so he could avoid the burden of the entire law (GAL. 5:3) and then he thought he could have a "law buffet". So, how can you fulfill the law when the very first step toward the law is gone? You cannot. You begin at failure. But both Moses and Paul mention circumcision without hands. How can you be circumcised if you are not circumcised? It cannot be by the letter!

What is our circumcision? (DEU. 10:16; JER. 4:4) Is it not of the heart? If you want circumcision, true circumcision, then you must look to the spirit of the law - to Christ, who circumcises the heart (EZE. 18:31; 36:26). But it's not just circumcision; it's everything. All of the elements from the Old Covenant are in the New, but different, and focused on Jesus. Sabbath, too. It has all been refocused onto Christ. All that was before were merely shadows that were cast by the reality of Christ (COL. 2:10; HEB. 10:1).

Paul had the letter of the law. He had all the bona fides anyone could ask for. He counted them all as dung so that he could grasp hold of Christ.

WE MUST KEEP THE LAW

Sabbatarians make a very large to-do about Paul saying the law was good and just. "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." (ROM. 7:12). It is! What then was the problem? The human heart was the problem. Jeremiah 17:9 says it is desperately wicked. The law from the outside cannot change the heart inside. Try as you may to correct this with law-keeping, yet it will never work. That was the issue to begin with. Does the Old Testament not demonstrate this?? Read about Paul's struggle with his heart in Romans 7:8-24. Or, Bill has several good posts about this very thing.

But God puts a new heart in you. When He says, "I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people," (JER. 31:33), He doesn't mean He will put a heart in you with the law scratched onto it, nor that He will put a heart in you so you can keep the letter of the law, as Sabbatarians so often claim. No! Why would He, when He's already accomplished everything you need? Think about it.
Do you truly keep the law? No church teaches all 613 laws are necessary. We know some of those 613 never applied to the common person. So, of the ones you feel must be kept, on your best day you know in your heart of hearts that you fail even at that fraction you attempt to keep. Over and over and over. You have succeeded no better than the Old Covenant Jews. Jeremiah 31:13 is not about God putting the letter of the law into your heart, or magically enabling you to keep the letter of the law. If it was, you'd be doing it.

In Sabbatarianism, so much is made of Paul's statement:

(ROM. 2:13) for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified

Guess what: you are not the doer of the law.
Who was Paul talking to? The Jewish converts. He goes immediately on to contrast them with the Gentile converts: "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law" (v.14). The Gentiles who did not have the law were the doers of the law. Those Jews who had the law and made their boast in the law were breaking the law every bit as much as modern people who have some of the law and make their boast in it (v.17-24). Neither they nor you are the doers of the law. Attempters only. Close doesn't count. If you break one, you've broken it all (JAS. 2:10).

But I have some very troubling news for you. You thought the law was the standard? Oh, it's much more than that.

(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

You must be holy and pure and perfect as God is holy and pure and perfect. How's that going for you?
There is only one way you're going to pull this off.

(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

He is the supreme "doer of the law". And you are credited as a "doer of the law" when you join Him.

I've mentioned many times in the past that the only way to surpass the Pharisees' righteousness is to become one with Jesus. I think this bears repeating.

(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.

Being one with Jesus by faith is the only way. You, by your own efforts, will never have more righteousness from the law than the Pharisees, who were absolutely fastidious about law-keeping and who lived while the whole law could be kept. It isn't that you need what the Pharisees had, only more. No. It's that you need a different kind of righteousness altogether.

It's not about the law in you and your partial, on again off again successes at "keeping" it. It's about Him in you, and you in Him. The author and goal and keeper of the law will be in you. Not to repeated failures and beating yourself up, fearfully awaiting judgment while hoping for forgiveness, but to a victory and an overcoming beyond words. Freely given and wholly undeserved. Because He took your sins on Himself so that He could put His righteousness onto you.

(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.

Do you want to finally keep the law? Do you want real righteousness? Then hear what I am telling you today.
You must be one in faith with Him who kept the law. He is the law-keeper. He is the circumcision of the heart. It says that in Colossians 2:11, which we read above. The law-keeping you should desire is His law-keeping, credited to you by faith. In Him, you've kept it all. Perfectly.

And then, in Him you will finally have rest. He is the Sabbath. He is the true rest. Because your striving to achieve what you have never been able to accomplish is now over. Understand, the Sabbath day is not about going to church. There is no law commanding church attendance. It was about rest. More accurately, it was not rest but ceasing from usual labors; rest is merely implied. Well, your work has ceased. He is the New Covenant Sabbath.

What was Paul's solution to his personal failure?

(ROM. 7:25) I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Through Christ Jesus. Through Him, and with Him, and in Him. He is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. He is the answer. He is sufficient.

Does it sound to you that I am making Jesus too central? It's all part of the greater plan.

(I COR. 15:28) Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

So, this is how Paul can in some places be against the law - because he was against the way things had been done up to that point; with Israel trying to obtain their own righteousness from the letter of the law yet failing time and again - and in other places be for the law - because he was a Jew who loved his Hebrew heritage and who understood the law and was for the spirit of the law, in the way things were to be done from that point on: seeking and at long last obtaining true righteousness: the righteousness of God by faith. He didn't abandon the law that was given to his people. He kept the law, in the only way it truly can be kept.

(ROM. 3:28-31) 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? [those with the law] Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? [those without the law] Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Of course we establish the law - even though we don't have the law - because we, through faith in Christ Jesus, obtain what the law was intended for to begin with. What remains then, but to observe the spirit of the law? And what is that? Faith and love.

(JAS. 2:8) If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well

CONCLUSION

Was Paul for the law? Yes! Was Paul against the law? Yes! But we must understand what Paul was doing - focusing and centering everything on Jesus. Paul was against us continuing to attempt and to fail at finding our righteousness in the law. That is the way of falling from grace (GAL. 5:4). Paul was absolutely in favor of the spirit of the law. To Paul, Jesus is the answer to both.

Jesus did not come to make the world into better Old Covenant Jews. Sabbatarians get caught up with laws because they believe sin and righteousness to be things that come from laws, and they do not distinguish between laws explicitly given to Israel and those given to all. But the Bible is clear that sin and righteousness do not come originally from laws; they come from God. Look to the One who is the source and finisher of it all. The Alpha and the Omega. Righteousness comes to us through our oneness with Jesus by faith. It's about a relationship. It's not that righteousness and morality don't matter for Christians, but where it comes from. Then go, and in spirit and in truth follow the Holy Spirit into a life of faith and love.

(ROM. 8:1) There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:

Jesus: He's Kind of a Big Deal
The First and Greatest Commandment: Greater than you Think
Imputed Righteousness - God's Exit Strategy
Physical vs Spiritual
God Judges According To The Heart
The Road To Sabbatarianism - Part III
Covenant Loyalty, Righteousness In Faith
Common Legalist Arguments - Part II
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
Lawlessness and I John 3
Sin Is The Transgression of The Law?
Confusing The Covenants
Two Trees - Two Covenants

"Ten Words or THE WORD" on the God Cannot Be Contained! blog.

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

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

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

The Gospel, Sin, and Glory

God reveals that iniquity was found in Satan. What, exactly, was his sin; his iniquity?

He sought his own glory.

Sin is properly defined as missing the mark in relation to the glory of God. Not the transgression of the law as the children of the devil attempt to redefine sin.

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

Sin here is the Greek word “hamartia” which means ‘missing the mark’ as in shooting an arrow at a target out of range. The glory of God is out of range for mankind. It is a target; a goal beyond man’s reach. Modifying the poorly translated verse and ignoring the first half of the verse, imparts an interpretation that exceeds the boundaries of the translation.

“…for sin is ‘anomia’” where ‘anomia’ is commonly translated into three words that are synonymous: Evil, iniquity, lawlessness; not in a specific sense, such as restricted to the Decalogue, but in a general sense, for a Greek, speaking Greek, would understand ‘anomia’ from the perspective of Greek culture, and not Hebrew culture.

(Romans 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

God shares His glory with no one.

(Isaiah 42:8) I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

(Isaiah 48:11) For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

The devil’s children, such as were the Pharisees, sought their own glory through the law; an elevated status among their peers. For those who reject the gospel, it is often due to their need to glorify themselves… give themselves the credit and glory even when it comes to their own salvation, believing their law keeping, according to their interpretation of Mt. 19:17, results in them saving themselves; a self-glorification that sees God’s participation in their salvation as a minor assistance. The function of the Holy Spirit is to enable them to keep the law, where they can now ‘hit the mark’ in relation to the glory of God, which again they interpret to mean the avoidance of sin by keeping the law.

Notice then the parallel with the goal of Satan to achieve parity with God through his own glorification of his own position where he sought to establish his throne on par with or equal to God’s.

(Isaiah 14:12-14) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

The Gospel is a plain and simple matter of Salvation being about what God does for mankind, where the only ‘requirement’ on our part is belief; faith and trust in God that He does exactly what He says He will do.

Those who reject the Gospel do so for one of two reasons:

1) They do not believe God. They do not have faith in God.

2) They believe they have an active part in their own Salvation where they can boast in their own ‘glory’ for accomplishing their part of the process, such as keeping the law. Their Salvation is a collaborative effort, where they can share in the glory.

There are also those who falsify the Gospel for their own gain; false prophets seeking a following; wolves in sheep’s clothing who seek to feed their own bellies at the expense of others, robbing them not only of their livelihoods, but even their life in paradise with God in His kingdom through this subterfuge. They often use the law as the means of their deception, appealing to the ego of their followers by presenting themselves as though they know the spiritual ropes of salvation.

The true Gospel resists manipulation by deceivers, due to its simplicity. Deceivers need complexity in order to sell their services to those they seek to manipulate and control. They need to present the Gospel as a complex issue with hoops that need to be jumped through in order to achieve the final goal.

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

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

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