LAWLESS

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, °For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; °According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.… — 1 Timothy 1:9-11

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

The phrase, “the transgression of the law” is derived from the one Greek word, “anomia” translated into English as “evil”, “iniquity”, “lawlessness” where “lawlessness” comes close to the transliteration of the Greek word: “a-” against “nomia” law. Against law. Contrary to law. Lawless is more aptly understood as “without law.” Without the restraints of law.

The first citation here gives a perspective of “lawless” based on the context. Lawless people are also disobedient, ungodly, sinners, unholy, profane, murderers of parents and others; liars, perjurers; things that are contrary to sound doctrine, in relation to the Gospel.

Notice Paul did not say these attributes of the lawless was in relation to the law, but in relation to the Gospel and being attributes or behaviors contrary to the Gospel, which, in this context, makes the Gospel a type or form of “law.”

The Gospel commands belief, faith, and trust in Christ Jesus. There exists a “law” of faith, mentioned by Paul in Romans chapter 3. In Romans chapter 8, another “law”:

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. °For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. — Romans 8:1-2

Those who are no longer condemned by the one law are freed from that law of “sin and death” through conformity to the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus; a law associated also with the Gospel, related to faith/belief, being attributes of the Spirit.

There are those who reject the law of faith; the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, who embrace the other law that the apostle Paul pointed out was not of faith, for this other law has nothing to do with the law of faith and the Spirit. It is / was a law for the FAITHLESS.

The Hebrews; the legal party to the old blood covenant law, were defined as faithless, stiff-necked and rebellious. The author of Hebrews refers to them as having “evil hearts of unbelief.”

Paul points out in his writings that they were to be held under the law UNTIL the revelation of the “faith to come.”

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. — Galatians 3:23

The faithless do not embrace the law of faith. They do apply methods of deception with the law that is not of faith in order to make it appear to be the law of faith, denying there even is another law.

With the new covenant law of faith and the Spirit; the law closely associated with the Gospel, faithlessness is a sin.

And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. — Romans 14:23

Seeing as the followers of Christ are freed now from condemnation, based on being freed from the one law and embracing the other, does the previous law still condemn those who have rejected the law of faith and the Spirit? Or does the new law of faith and the Spirit condemn those who fail to embrace it?

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. °And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: °Of sin, because they believe not on me; — John 16:7-9

It is those who reject the law of faith and the Spirit that stand condemned in this present world. The faith that was to be revealed has been revealed, and many there be that reject it, in favor of the law they were kept under in the meantime.

The Gospel has an association with the new covenant law of faith and the Spirit, and no association with the other law of sin and death, also referred by Paul in 2Corinthians 3 as the ‘ministration of condemnation and death, engraven in stones’; the law the Hebrews were kept under UNTIL the faith to be revealed; a law of faith and the Spirit, expressed through the Gospel; a message of salvation based in the law of faith and the Spirit; not the previous law of sin and death; the ministration of condemnation and death, engraven in stones.

That previous law produces wrath and makes all guilty of sin: Lawless in relation to the New Covenant law of faith and the Spirit. Lawless in relation to the Gospel. Lawless in relation to the OC law, that was given to the lawless, faithless.

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

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

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

Evil Hearts; Good Hearts

Evil people do evil. Their fruits are evil, only, in the sight of God.

The fundamental difference between evil people and God, along with those who are the “new creature” (creation) who are led by the Holy Spirit, is that God and the righteous ones judge according to the heart, whereas evil people judge according to outward appearance; unrighteous judgment, seeing as God refers to righteous judgment as contrasted to judging according to outward appearance.

Evil people, due to their deceptive hearts, refuse to believe they are evil, and seek to “prove” they are good using the only standard available to them, being evil people, and that is to judge even themselves according to appearance.

Because this is the only standard by which they can judge, being evil, they also use this standard to judge others, so that they end up judging good people by this false standard of outward appearance.

Evil people then gravitate to the law that is ready-made to be manipulated so as to give the outward appearance of being good by keeping the law, as well as using the standard or requirements of the law to judge and condemn good people who they perceive as such because they do not keep the law. They cannot conceive of the concept that good people do not have to prove themselves good through the law. The evidence of their condition is established by the fruits of the Spirit where it is possible for good works, wrought in and through the Holy Spirit, to violate the letter of the law that evil people embrace as the ‘proof’ they are good.

The proof of this concept is found whereby Jesus worked on the Sabbath, breaking the Sabbath by doing good works, and not evil works. For again, and for the sake of emphasis, good “trees” can only produce good works / fruits, and if anyone was good then, it was Jesus; God Incarnate.

This also provides evil people with the opportunity to manipulate the law so as to make themselves “look” good while using the law to “prove” those good people as the real evil ones; not them; for they “keep the law” that defines sin or evil works as the result of transgressing the law, such as the Sabbath, unwilling to admit good works are lawful on the Sabbath, even as Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath so declared. Admitting good works to be lawful on the Sabbath they use as evidence of their spiritual condition of being good, keeping the law, is eroded.

Biblical Evidence

(1 Timothy 1:9-10) Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, °For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Christians are righteous - due to faith, not law.

(Romans 4:13) For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

(Philippians 3:9) And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Converse to this is unrighteousness, which is not derived through the transgression of the law, but through the condition of the heart, whereby God judges righteous judgment; a “deceitful and desperately wicked heart” – a heart of stone and an evil heart of unbelief is what makes one unrighteous. (Jeremiah 17:9; Ezekiel 11:19; Ezekiel 36:26; Hebrews 3:12)

The law condemns the unrighteous sinner. Ironic then that the unrighteous; those with the evil hearts, gravitate to the law that condemns them; not others who God deems as righteous who are said in Scripture to be dead to the law; freed from the law, not under the law and redeemed from the law. They are not subject to the condemnation of the law, (Rom. 8:1) that condemnation having been taken by Jesus in their stead.

Evil people who embrace the law will hop up and down screaming that faith and grace do not justify sin, where they define sin as the automatic result of transgressing the law, citing only part of 1John 3:4, while ignoring what the Greek actually says and relates. Sin ALSO transgresses the law where sin is also “anomia” translated into English as evil, iniquity, and lawlessness in a GENERAL sense and not specifically as against only the Decalogue of the Hebrew old covenant law. It strains credulity to conclude that a Greek speaking person in a Grecian city-state, referred to evil and iniquity being solely the transgression of a law of another country, namely Israel and the Hebrew law.

An evil heart is a sinful heart, that only produces evil, iniquitous, lawless fruit. And the law condemned such people, whether they “kept the law” or not, as evidenced by Psalms 44.

A further irony is that God, in His judgment, may well say to such people that they chose the law, therefore let the very law they embraced by their judge.

(Luke 19:12-27) He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Keeping the law seems like the right thing to do, but there is no “gain” of good works. There is simply the refraining from doing evil; an attempt to not sin; not bear bad / evil fruits (works). What gets overlooked is that a person must bear good fruits, or else:

(Matthew 3:10) And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

(Matthew 7:19) Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Those who opt to live by the law; keeping the law, who have the deceptive and wicked heart do not, and cannot bring forth good fruit.

(John 15:18-25) In this story Jesus put forth cited here, the people who would not have Him rule over them hated Him.

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Who all was Jesus referring to that hated Him, and hated His followers, that had the power to persecute both Jesus and them?

The Pharisees and religious elite of Israel; the Sanhedrin… all who lived by the law and taught the law. The administrators of the law. The law Paul, as cited above, wrote that it was for the unrighteous and not the righteous. The law that produces wrath and makes all guilty before God, and not justified before God. The law that was made for the sinners with evil hearts.

They did not want God ruling over them; having jurisdiction over them. They preferred the law; an inanimate thing, like an idol, that they controlled and ruled with surreptitiously.

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

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

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

Sabbath and Sin

(John 10:27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Conversely, those who refuse to hear His voice; believe in Him and what He SAID, are not His sheep. They listen to others.

Fruits or works of the Spirit are those things done by those who are led by the Spirit. They take the attributes of the Spirit and apply them in everything they do in their Christian life; their walk of faith. Listening to and believing Jesus is therefore ‘good fruit’, and ignoring Him and what He SAID, listening to others, is ‘evil fruit’ produced by those who do not follow Christ Jesus, God Incarnate.

He SAID good works are lawful on the Sabbath. He SAID good works, as contrasted to evil works. He did NOT SAY a good work is evil and sin if done on the Sabbath.

A good man’s works are good, every day. An evil man’s works are evil, every day. An evil heart taints and affects everything done by an evil man. The works of a good man are influenced by his good heart.

(Matthew 12:35) A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

Evil men do not believe Jesus; God Incarnate. They do not listen to Him. They do not follow Him. They contradict Him, even as did the evil-hearted Pharisees who accused Him of sin for having worked on the Sabbath where He produced good works.

If you proclaim that a Christian - in whom dwells the Holy Spirit, in whom is the “new heart” given those who believe and follow Christ Jesus - sins by working on the Sabbath, then you demonstrate through what you believe that you do not believe Jesus; you do not listen to and hear His voice. You are listening to others who also ignore Him and what He SAID. You show your lack of faith, trust, and devotion to Him and in Him. You expose your own evil heart of unbelief (Heb. 3:12). You hold the Sabbath in higher esteem than the Lord of the Sabbath, elevating the Sabbath to the status of “another god” that is greater than God.

Breaking the law does not result in sin. Sinning breaks the law. Do you see the difference?

Murder is a sin; an evil, iniquitous act that ALSO breaks the law. The law is what prescribes the punishment for sin.

Sabbatarians were taught, ‘conditioned’, to view this ‘backwards’ so that a transgression of the law that was not a sin to begin with transforms into a sin because the action technically transgressed the law. Jesus gave examples where this happens, with no charge of sin.

Do you believe Him and what He SAID? Or are you listening to and believing another?

You parrot “sin is the transgression of the law” while ignoring the entire verse, and what the underlying Greek so plainly states that contradicts this translation that slips into ‘interpretation.’

It says, in the flawed English KJV “translation”:

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

One who sins ALSO transgresses the law.

You ‘interpret’ what follows to mean what the Pharisees also concluded, wrongly, that ignores the first part of this verse. A sin; any sin committed by a Hebrew, a person under the law, ALSO transgressed the law that prescribes the penalty for sin.

(Romans 4:15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

You can’t transgress a law that doesn’t exist. But you can sin. You can do evil, if you are evil.

(Romans 5:13) For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Are you paying close attention? Sin does not come from the law. There was sin in the world THEN came the law. Now, for people under the law, there is sin and there is law-breaking, where the result is that sin is “imputed”, charged as a crime against the law, that is punishable. But if there is no law, then sin remains, but there is no law to give sin “teeth” or “strength” to condemn.

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

Whosoever commits sin [hamartia – missing the mark in relation to the glory of God] ALSO transgresses the law [that gives “strength” to sin to condemn]: for sin is anomia [evil, iniquitous, “lawlessness” in a general sense, and not a specific sense regarding a specific law].

Sin transgresses the law because sin is evil, iniquitous and lawlessness.

Someone commits a sin; an evil, iniquitous, lawless act, where law “imputes” the sin as a punishable offense; a chargeable offense under whatever law is extant, in this case the entire corpus of law that was a covenant law with the legal parties being the Hebrews and God.

All sins; all punishable acts in that blood covenant law were paid by the Lord of the Sabbath who made it a point to SAY good works are not a sin because they are good works; not evil, iniquitous works that alone can and did transgress the law and that good works on the Sabbath, remain good works, and not sinful works; not evil, iniquitous works, or lawless works when you properly understand “lawless” contextually.

Good works are never lawless works in this context. No matter when they are done. Evil, iniquitous, “lawless” works on the Sabbath were sin, simply because ALL the works of those same Hebrews were seen by God, who judges according to the heart, as evil, iniquitous, lawless works; the “works of their hands.”

As Jesus pointed out in this regard, good ‘trees’ produce ONLY good fruits/works, and bad (evil) ‘trees’ produce ONLY evil fruits or works of their hands.

Good works therefore are LAWFUL (not lawless) on the Sabbath by those who are deemed by God to be the ‘good trees’; those with good hearts, that come from Him to begin with.

Who then would ‘charge’ Christians with sin for working on the Sabbath? Those who are ‘bad trees’ and not good trees. Those with evil hearts who call evil, good, and good, evil.

Evil people will do evil, iniquitous, and “lawless” works, which include accusing good people of evil, sinful works, even “twisting scripture” in order to mask their evil hearts, using the law as the means to do so, cloaking their evil with the law even as did the Pharisees Jesus SAID were evil children of the Devil, doing the will of their father the Devil. They put on an outward show of keeping the law and Sabbath so as to DECEIVE. And their deception, through the law, included charging Jesus of sin over the Sabbath law, by claiming a breaking the law was to sin instead of an evil, iniquitous act resulting in breaking the law.

They too had it all backwards.

Sin; an evil, iniquitous act, breaks the law. Breaking the law with a good work that is not evil/iniquitous/lawless does not result in the invocation of sin. Evil is sin because it is evil. Good works, even if done on the Sabbath, are not evil and sin due to the day being the Sabbath. Only evil people would attempt to call good works evil and sin because they are performed on 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

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

Acts 15 - What Was Debated? - part II

What were the Pharisees really trying to require of the Gentiles in Acts 15? Sabbatarians argue it wasn't what Luke plainly wrote. In this article we'll examine the last of the three most common explanations and see if it can withstand scrutiny.

---

We've been deep-diving into Acts 15, stress testing some claims about what was really going on in the Jerusalem Council. In the first post, we investigated the Sabbatarian interpretation of verse 21 to see if the plan was really to send Gentile converts to synagogue to learn more law later on. We saw that the best approach is to let the context speak for itself rather than read a bunch of predetermined conclusions into it. In the previous post, we looked at what the debate was about in the first place.

Most people seem to believe the debate was between the Apostles who were 0% in favor of the law vs the Pharisees who were 110% in favor of the law. That is not the case. The Apostles were in favor of letting the Jewish converts retain their Hebrew traditions, yet binding none of that on the Gentile converts. If you want an example of a Jewish convert keeping their Old Covenant traditions, I offer you --- the very Pharisee converts at the heart of this debate.
Sabbatarians, however, assert the Apostles were roughly 3% in favor of the law vs the Pharisees who wanted something else entirely. But what? The three main explanations are:

A) Circumcision only, or
B) Pharisaical traditions, or
C) All the law - particularly the ones which Sabbatarians don't believe are necessary and which they call "the Law of Moses".

In the last post, "Acts 15 - What Was Debated? - part I", we went over the first two of these. We saw how they don't hold up. Today, we investigate the third.

Let's get crack-a-lackin.

LAW OF MOSES?

The Council was not only about the "law of Moses".

Some people realize this could not only have been about circumcision or the customs, but they still have an ideological commitment to protect the Ten Commandments, therefore they redefine what the phrase "the law of Moses" means. Some redefine it as the ceremonial and national portions of the Old Covenant law. They claim there is a difference between the "law of God" (ie. the Ten Commandments plus a handful of other things like tithing, meats, and holy days) and the "law of Moses" (pretty much everything else). This has become a very popular claim.

I disagree there is such a difference in the first place. We have articles on that (see "Law of Moses - Law of God" and "Law of God - Law of Moses").

Now, I realize those two posts that I just mentioned can be very confusing. They made sense when I wrote them, but they are admittedly challenging to follow. I will distill down the best parts for you here. Let's start with Nehemiah 8.

(NEH. 8:1,8) 1 Now all the people gathered together as one man in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law [torah] of Moses, which the LORD had commanded Israel. ... 8 So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law [torah] of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading.

Same book, same law, two descriptions. In one verse it's "law of Moses". In another verse it's "law of God". In both it's "Torah". It's all the same thing.

Joshua 8:30-35 calls the whole Torah the "book of the law" and "book of the law of Moses". Remember, in Joshua's time they only had the first five books. All of it was "the law of Moses". And what will we find more than once in this 'law of Moses'? The Ten Commandments.

It's the same in the New Testament.

(Luke 24:44) Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

That's the whole Old Testament. Jesus recognized the three divisions in the scriptures: the law, the prophets, and the psalms. But He refers to the whole law as "the law of Moses".

I Kings 2 presents this even more clearly:

(I KIN. 2: 3) And keep the charge of the LORD your God: to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses.

Oh my.
I shouldn't have to say another word about this ...but I will.

My conclusion, that there is no difference between "law of God" and "law of Moses", is precisely what was written in the Worldwide Church of God's "Systematic Theology" document, 1978 version, page 3 paragraph 2. They wrote:

"It is also important to note that the term 'law of Moses' is itself used interchangeably with the term 'law of God.'"

Except, the Systematic Theology was a bit controversial and contradicted other things that were written by the same church both before and afterward. (Armstrongism always has liked to have its cake and eat it too.) Still, I find it interesting that the Worldwide Church of God in its heyday, for brief and shining moment, officially recognized what I am telling you now.

Referring back to Josephus - read his works and you will see he consistently treats the laws, the Torah, the books of Moses, and Moses' legislation, as one body of material. So, now we have biblical and extra-biblical reasons to believe it's all the same thing.

You see, when the Bible says "of Moses" or "of [insert name here]", it doesn't necessarily mean those things belong to that person or were invented by that person. It means those things were either primarily about that person or they were given through that person. For example, "Jesus of Nazareth" doesn't mean Jesus belongs to Nazareth. Likewise, "the book of Isaiah" was not really about Isaiah so much as it was about the prophecies that God gave through Isaiah. They were God's prophecies, but called Isaiah's because he was the conduit. "The Gospel of Mark" doesn't mean there is a gospel about Mark or a gospel that belongs to Mark, separate from “gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (MARK. 1: 1). That's all "the law of Moses" means. Those laws didn't belong to him; they were given through him.

(JON. 1: 17a) For the law was given through Moses...

There is no "law of Moses" with a separate and distinct "law of God". They were all the law of God. They were all the law of Moses. The whole third claim is artificial and based on a predetermined commitment; a commitment to take the singular body of law and break it up into chunks, keeping a few and discarding the rest.

I realize this is a critical point for Sabbatarians, so they will disagree with me. They must. So, let's look at some of the top arguments in favor of there being a "law of God" and a separate "law of Moses". 

Perhaps the foremost argument is:
The Ten Commandments were written by God's own finger and were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, while the book of laws that Moses wrote was placed beside the Ark.

The point of this is to make the Ten separate and superior. This has some serious problems.

The first problem is: It was the second set of tablets that were put into the Ark, but it's not clear who wrote the second set of tablets.

God wrote the first set of the Ten Commandments with His own finger, but then Moses broke those tablets. As for the second set:

(EXO. 34:1) And the Lord said to Moses, “Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.
(EXO. 34:27) Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”

Who wrote the second set? Scholars have debated for a very long time whether it was God or Moses. It isn't clear. If you want to believe it was God, that's fine. But...

The second problem is: the Ten Commandments were written in the book Moses wrote, too.

It's in both places. How can the Ten Commandments be superior to the Ten Commandments? If ignore Nehemiah 8 and forge ahead claiming "the law of Moses" was that book, then it was all "the law of Moses". In fact, I'm willing to bet you've never read the Ten Commandments straight from the tablets. You got "God's law" from descendants of that book that was placed beside the Ark, same as the rest of us.

The third problem is: no Sabbatarian church that I've ever heard of believes only the Ten Commandments are required.

A little law always leads to more. What about tithes? What about meats laws? What about holy days? None of those are in the Ten, or the "moral law" for that matter (another artificial term). So, if those aren't "Law of God" then why must anyone bother with them? And what about the four laws the Apostles said were necessary for Gentiles to observe in Acts 15? They were not in the "Law of God". And what about circumcision, which got this ball rolling in the first place? All of these are solidly in what Sabbatarians call "the law of Moses".

So, were the tablets placed in the Ark with the Aaron's staff and a pot of mana because:
A) Those three things were creating a special category of law,
or
B) Because they were special physical items that represented God's relationship with Israel?

I am going with B.

I do not find this argument convincing at all. And it's arguably the best one.

There is another claim which is very similar to the first.

Herman Hoeh, "the most accurately informed historian in the world", had a slight variation. In his article "Which Old Testament Laws Are In Force Today?", he claimed:
The Ten are special because they are the only laws God spoke directly to Israel, while Moses merely delivered the statutes and judgments.

While those base facts may be true, the conclusion he is attempting to reach does not hold. The way they were delivered does not make them a separate class of law. God spoke many of the laws to Moses, who them wrote down in his book. The issue is not whether God spoke these words directly vs. indirectly through Moses. The issue is that they came from God. I am not convinced by the claim, "All mankind must keep these laws because these are the ones God spoke to Israel."

In Israel's view:

"All 613 of those mitzvot are equally sacred, equally binding and equally the word of G-d. All of these mitzvot are treated as equally important."
-Judaism 101, “Aseret ha-Dibrot: The Ten Commandments”.

I am not saying the Ten aren't special. They are! But even the Jews don't believe their delivery or where they were placed makes them a separate and particularly binding class of law.

There are more arguments than these, of course, but I am not going to get into them here. They get more and more ridiculous as you go along. I will simply suggest reading "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VI".

This whole section boils down to this: modern Sabbatarians say "law of Moses" refers to a particular subset of the law, but if we cannot prove that's what the people at the Jerusalem Council thought then it all falls apart. And we have no good reason to believe that's what the Apostles and Pharisees thought.

The initial trouble was not only about some portion of the law called "the Law of Moses".

CONCLUSION

The three main explanations given by Sabbatarians of what the Pharisees were trying to bind on the Gentiles are either:
A) Circumcision only. It cannot be this because Luke says, "and the law." Circumcision was not about merely being circumcised.
B) Pharisaical traditions. It cannot be this because Luke says, "the law of Moses." The oral law was not called the law of Moses.
C) The "law of Moses". It cannot be this because there is no separate "law of Moses" distinct from "law of God". They are the same thing.

We have reviewed each and shown how each of these has insurmountable weaknesses. Each one collapses under its own weight.
These three aren't reasonable explanations so much as they are rescue attempts.

I was an Armstrongist. I know the motivation - there must be a Sabbath day, and that means there must be the Ten Commandments, and that means the Apostles must be for some of the law, and that means the Pharisees must be arguing something other than what Acts 15 actually says. These three explanations are the result.
And that means the "Early Church Fathers" were all liars, and this is all Constantine's fault, and mainstream Christians are all deceived, and so on and so forth. I get it.

The Sabbatarian understanding of Acts 15 comes out of prior commitments to the Sabbath day. In short, eisegesis.
But, in case you haven't noticed, this blog has been systematically going through each individual point in the universe of Sabbatarian proof texts, and we've been pointing out the issues in each and showing other ways to understand them. What we've been driving at is - what if there is no prior commitment to the Sabbath day? What if the Apostles really did decide against requiring the law for Gentile converts? What if the New Covenant really is different from the Old, as the prophecies of Jeremiah predicted? What if these three explanations we saw today fall apart because the prior commitment itself is not valid in the first place? If these three points really are the explanation, then why are they completely incompatible with one another? It sounds like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. None of them do!

So what were the Pharisees really debating in Acts 15? I believe they were debating how to join the Covenant.

The fourth explanation is that Pharisees meant exactly what Luke wrote: The Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law.
That's what the text says.
And the decision of the Apostles was exactly what Luke wrote, and several years later reiterated when he quoted James: "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing."

But the Gentiles were not joining Israel. The Gentiles already received the Holy Spirit. They were accepted into the New Covenant without joining Israel first. Instead, both Jew and Gentile were joining the body of Christ, and all the Gentile converts had to do to keep the peace with the Jewish converts were those points of the law required of all Gentiles in Israel from Leviticus 17 & 18.

Or, to put this entire thing another way:

Christ is sufficient.

Other articles in this series:

Acts 15:21 - More Law Later?
Acts 15 - What Was Debated? - part I

To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:

The Legalist Dance
Common Legalist Arguments - Part VI
Confusing The Covenants
The Plain Truth About Peter's Hypocrisy
Shadows, Nails and the Fall Holy Days
Law of Moses - Law of God - Part I
Law of God - Law of Moses - Part II
Two Trees - Two Covenants
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
Lawlessness and I John 3
Sin Is The Transgression of 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

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

What Is The Root of Sin?

Sabbatarianism asks, then answers, “what is sin?”

A better question is: What is the root of sin? What is sin’s foundation?

Jesus answers this more basic question.

(Matthew 12:35) A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

The genesis of sin is an evil heart.

(Jeremiah 17:9) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Sabbatarianism attempts to deal with sin from the wrong perspective, seeing the law as the solution, and not by addressing the heart and the condition of the heart. It is like a doctor treating the symptom of a disease, and not the root cause that produces the symptoms.

Sabbatarianism therefore shifts the problem to the result of sin, ignoring the causative factor of sin, that being a bad heart; an evil heart.

Sabbatarianism also distracts themselves and others by further claiming that it is through the law God judges mankind so as to make it appear that the solution is found in keeping the law and not keeping the law brings about God’s judgment and wrath.

But what did God have to say on this matter? That He does not judge like a man judges and as a man concludes; rather He judges what He refers to as 'righteous judgment', according to the heart of man.

(1 Samuel 16:7) But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

(Romans 2:5) But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Mankind has a heart problem, where the solution proffered by God is a new heart.

(Ezekiel 18:31) Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

(Ezekiel 36:26 A) new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Whenever Sabbatarians are confronted with an alternate explanation and solution for sin, they reject it due to the investment they have made with the law, thereby resisting the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit is that “new heart” God speaks of as well as that law placed within the believer. However, with an emphasis on the law, people are driven further away from God as a result.

(Matthew 23:15) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

What is the proselyte taught? What is he indoctrinated into?

The law. And the result of being focused exclusively on the law is to exclude all else and where the real problem lays; that being a heart problem; a ‘diseased’ wicked heart… an evil heart of unbelief in regards here to what God says is the problem; how He judges mankind, and His solution being the thing those bound up in the law reject out of hand, even as did the Pharisees who put Stephen the martyr to death.

(Acts 7:52)Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

They cloaked their evil hearts with the law. They insulated their evil hearts against the Holy Spirit with the law.

“Keep the law, and do not sin. Sin is the problem, and keeping the law is the solution, for sin is the result of transgressing the law.”

God’s solution is more elegant, and more anathema to Sabbatarianism. Replace the heart, and the sin problem goes away for the motive to sin also goes away. And because God Himself took the wrath of the law upon Himself, the law was thus satisfied and God’ s justice was thus satisfied, which results in the one with the new heart; the Holy Spirit and spiritual law of God that leads the believer into life eternal, and not a law that led the evil hearted into their just condemnation, meted out by the law of sin and death; the ministration of condemnation and death, engraven in stones.

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

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

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

Evil Uses the Sabbath

There is a category of evil people that refuse to believe they are evil. They believe they are good in that they do not do some of the more egregious things “evil” people do, like commit murder. They will admittedly do some minor things that are wrong, chalking it up to human nature, but having embraced religion, they confess those discretions, and carry on.

They will embrace variations of Old Covenant law in order to validate their perception of themselves. This is where the Sabbath comes into play. Part of this equation is wanting to prove they are good. Part of this proof is found through comparing themselves with those perceived by them to be evil. They are "evil' people because they do not do those things that "good" people do, like keeping the law “of God”.

(Isaiah 1:13-20) Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

(Isaiah 1:13) [JPS] Bring no more vain oblations; It is an offering of abomination unto Me; New moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations— I cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly.

These "good" things had morphed into useless and vain rituals without substance which became iniquitous in the sight of God. There were much more important things to attend to.

They were going through the motions of keeping those things commanded in the law. Their hands they raised to God in worship in their religious assemblies were full of blood. Their worship was in vain; even iniquitous – an ‘aggravated’ sinful act. These were outward expressions of piety that were fraudulent; deceptive; misleading.

Such actions and behaviors, like keeping the Sabbath, came down to being theater; an outward show and appearance. What was to be the worship of God was nothing other than self-aggrandizement; an act of glory to one’s self, and not an act of glory to God. It was a display designed to gather attention to the self, not unlike this example:

(Matthew 6:5) And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

A truly Godly person has God as the focus and reason for all they do, done out of love and gratitude to God who pulled them out of the mire of the world and their own sins, now dedicated to God and producing fruits unto God to the glory of God.

But when a sinful man who is in denial practices a religion of outward show, such as keeping the Sabbath, he does it for the glory of himself. “I keep the law and Sabbath, unlike these sinners who do not keep the law and Sabbath.” When you break it down, keeping the Sabbath, the focus is on the self in relation to a day they refrain from doing any work, including any fruits born to the glory of God. The focus is on the day and the self.

(Isaiah 58:13) If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

They were not doing these things mentioned by God on the Sabbath. They were not honoring God. They were focused on the day, even as are modern Sabbatarians, as well as themselves, honoring themselves for keeping the Sabbath, while denigrating those who do not, believing they are the ones dishonoring God by not keeping the day; observing the day itself for the day’s sake.

Consider though the works and fruits of a Christian whose fruits are to the glory and honor of God EVERY DAY, following a lifestyle of dedication to God EVERY DAY; every waking hour.

The Sabbatarian defines himself with the Sabbath. The true Christian defines himself as a forgiven sinner who loves the God who saved him from sin and the consequences of sin who now dedicates himself totally to God and praising His glory for His mercy and compassion shown him.

But the Sabbatarian views himself as having overcome sin through his own efforts, and only needs God to come on the scene for those rare occasions he “sins” and requires forgiveness, then it’s back to business as usual…

Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit? — Amos 8:5

God foretold He would do away with the Sabbath, it having become unproductive. The day had become more important to the people than what the day was to represent.

(Luke 13:14-17) And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

What Jesus did was what God does, being God – acts of compassion; acts of love, to the glory of the Father.

(Hosea 2:11) Sabbatarians idolize the Sabbath and idolize the law “engraven in stones” not unlike how the children of Israel ended up idolizing the serpent set up on a pole by Moses called Nehushtan they were to look upon should any of them be bitten by vipers, burning incense to it where incense represented prayers. I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

The Pharisees of Jesus’ time, who administered the law, focused on those works of the law that could be manipulated to present them to the people as righteous and where Jesus chastised them for neglecting the weightier matters of the law. The weightier matters of the law did not serve them. They were not interested in administering true justice, mercy, and faith. They were there to uphold the works of the law, especially the Sabbath, with a ruthless zeal if necessary, ‘defending the faith.’ Their dedication was to the law and Sabbath that served them and their agenda; not God; not the “Lord of the Sabbath” who declared good works lawful; not a sin; works done to the glory of God by those who follow God and whose works are always to the glory of God; good trees, producing only good fruits (works) wrought in God that could only be carried out because of God, due to His presence through the Holy Spirit in them.

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

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

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