The Sabbatarian Inner Conflict

Sabbatarianism may seem like it has the answers and "just makes sense," but when we zoom out we see there is more conflict than coherence.

---

I feel the need to rant today, because sometimes doing this gets to you.

I was once an Armstrongist. I know how the system works. I lived it for 30 years. I studied it. I preached it. I haven't stopped studying it.
To us, the Armstrongist view was truth. Period. We didn't need to prove it because it started out that way. It had to be. We had our very own Apostle, the first to preach the Gospel in 1,900 years, and he said anything else was pagan and might cost us our place in the Kingdom. That alone is enough to make the quality of evidence take a back seat because so long as it agrees with the system then it's truth. The number one concern is getting a certain result. We Armstrongists were so focused on trying to make the evidence fit the narrative one bit at a time that we didn't realize the issues we were causing. We would say anything we thought we had to in one place to support one thing, without a thought in the world of what we had just caused in another place with another thing.

Today, I would like to zoom out and go over some examples of these unintended consequences and the conflict that is caused by not thoroughly investigating our own doctrines. I want to approach this as if the starting point was never proved to begin with, and so the evidence should matter. This is a post about evidence.

LAW FOR ALL

Let's start with the claim that the law was given to the world. That is something we force into the biblical narrative, not something we receive out of it. The law as written, I mean. We went over that recently in "Editing the Commandments" and again in "Denying Babel, Erasing Israel". The law and the prophets were written quite specifically for the covenant people Israel (DEU. 5:3; JER. 31:31; HEB. 8:7-8; ROM.9:3-5). Gentiles were strangers to the Old Covenant and its terms (EPH. 2:11-12).

The law was for Israel, Israel was for the Messiah, and the Messiah is for the world.

This claim of 'the law is for everyone' is an Adventist claim from the mid-1800s. It started in response to pushback stating 'the Sabbath is Jewish'. But 'the Sabbath is for everyone' and 'the entire law is for everyone' are two different magnitudes of claims.
Sabbatarianism started with the realization that the Sabbath day is Saturday, not Sunday. OK, fine. That's actually correct. Sunday is the Lord's Day not the Sabbath day, regardless of what some modern Christians might think. But early Sabbatarians were challenged on why we need to keep a Jewish day. That forced their hand, and they turned to the Ten Commandments for justification. "The Ten are moral." But why just those laws? And so it became any "moral law". But by what authority do we keep only some of the law and not others. And so it became all laws. "The law is eternal and perfect and binding on everyone; always have been and always will be." All of this was in place by the end of the 1800s. That is still the claim to this day, but that goes too far, and it gets pared back down again to moral laws plus tithes and meats laws, and maybe a few more depending on which group you're with.
A little law always leads to more.

Everything we claimed turns out to be after the fact scrambles to justify ourselves. We had to innovate to prove we had been right this whole time.

That the law was for Israel was an essential idea underlying the debate of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. The debate within the Council affirms, and James some years later reaffirms in Acts 21, that the law was not for the Gentiles, and this affects everything Sabbatarianism holds dear.
Therefore, the Armstrongist explanation requires that the Pharisees were not arguing what they said they were arguing, and the Apostles did not decide what they said they decided.

But now we've created the need for workarounds, like the idea that we can get some of the law by avoiding circumcision, and the end result is a law buffet where no two Sabbatarian groups can seem agree what should be on their plate. Other Sabbatarian groups, like the Hebrew Roots, take this even farther and they claim the Gentiles were attending synagogue with Jews, where they would learn straight from non-believing Pharisees every single thing they just got done claiming the Apostles were against barely 5 verses earlier. And now we have to rewrite history as well because this is not what we see in the history books.

No one seems to notice that we argued for the whole law, only to turn right around and throw that out the window because we only want some of the law.
No one seems to notice that we argued that 'the law is perfect' only to turn right around and change the law so we could keep it.
We literally argued two completely incompatible things at the same time. These two are not by any means the only examples I can give.

Do you see the conflict?

MORALITY

The Sabbath day is the trunk of this tree. But if you think about it, the Sabbath is just a means to an end. It is a means to please (some people think it's not please but manipulate) God. If you want to dig to the root of this tree, the nagging, biting, unresolved issue here is ultimately one of the nature of righteousness. At the end of the day, Sabbatarians are just normal people who want to please God, and they feel the law can tell them how to do that.

Sabbatarianism starts from the conclusion that righteousness and sin are revealed to us through law. Without law, morality stops making sense in a Sabbatarian system. Without law, why did the angels fall? Without law, what did the world do so wrong as to be flooded and disinherited? Without law, what did Abel and Noah and Abraham obey? Without law, what is hedonism and why shouldn't we do whatever comes to mind? Without law, why shouldn't you commit adultery?

But not just "law" -- the Old Covenant law.
Sabbatarianism believes the Old Covenant law is the only law, and that law is the primary means all mankind was given to know good and evil. (Pun intended.) Everything else is considered to flow from this. So, we believed the Old Covenant law was there from creation but was forgotten and then merely reiterated to Israel, and they will be with us forever.

Only, that is not what the Bible says.

So, everything is made to fit this ...even if we have to rewrite history, use Strong's concordance to edit the meanings of words, completely ignore context, make baseless assertions, claim two incompatible things at the same time, or quote demonstrably problematic translations of the Bible to achieve this goal (I refer to the KJV rendering of I John 3:4). The facts must be made to fit the narrative; anything else is pagan.

Anything that uses the techniques I just listed will inevitably end up causing more problems than it solves. For example, Romans 5:13-14 make absolutely no sense:

(ROM. 5:13-14) 13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Sabbatarianism has no clean answer for how sin can exist apart from law, and how there can be a time in the world before law, especially a time lasting from Adam to Moses. This cannot be accepted because it is a fundamental incompatibility. So it is denied. Perhaps by saying God created the Sabbath on day 7 (read "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2"), or Abraham kept the law (I will have an article on this soon).

But if not from law, then where else might righteousness originate? Answer: Directly from God's nature! The righteousness God desires does not come from the law, it comes from Himself. Directly. We go over this in "The Road to Sabbatarianism - part III".

If good and evil come directly from God's nature and our relationship to God or lack thereof, then there is no problem here. God is righteousness (and love, and truth, and wisdom, etc). God does not need a law to be righteous. Sin is anything not in alignment with God's nature. No law necessary. 

The law had a different function altogether. Not to create "sin" or "righteousness" - because both exist apart from law (for more see "The Road to Sabbatarianism - part III") - but to make sin inescapably obvious and to add concrete penalties for sin. (And thereby to guide Israel away from the Gentiles' idolatry until Messiah came.) Law is merely one way to express this. Hence the ceremonial laws which taught Israel about God's holiness. But if those ceremonial laws are no longer necessary, this must mean we can learn about God's holiness another way, or that we can learn it from laws that do not apply to us.

But now we have the Christ event.
With Jesus, there is no condemnation. When we become one with Jesus by faith, His success is credited to us. Since He is the perfect law-keeper who fulfilled all the whole law, we have fulfilled the law in Him. The righteousness God desires is His own righteousness, in us, undeserved, which is credited to us by faith alone, due to our oneness with Him. Faith, expressed in acts of love. Righteousness is a covenant word. Righteousness is not about law-keeping, but about relationship. An active relationship with God, expressed in following the Holy Spirit into acts of love for God's images. And if you read what Bill has been writing about a good heart versus a bad one, you will see a lot more than what I can fit here.

That simply isn't how it works in Sabbatarianism, though. It needs a Sabbath day and it relies on the law to justify the day. We were taught good and evil do require laws, and those things I've said above are lies. We were told Jesus only came so we could be forgiven. And we used terms like "greasy grace." We were told Jesus would never change "His Father's laws". We were told God wants us to struggle and to 'qualify'. We were told that to be loving to those in the world is to actively fight against God - even to the point where voting is banned. We were told the New Covenant is basically a continuation of the Old.

Do you see the conflict?

A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE RESULTS

Sabbatarianism relies on a series of proofs, some stronger and some hastily constructed. While defending the system, once we felt we had achieved our goal we would rarely think deeply beyond it. "It makes sense," we would say. There we would stop. We would rarely think about the things we just did to achieve our desired conclusions. Were they valid or reasonable or thorough? Doesn't matter. We would rarely continue on and think things all the way through to the logical conclusions of what we've just claimed. And we would ignore what kind of mess we've made elsewhere. One might say, emotional satisfaction trumped intellectual honesty.

This post might sound like a bunch of criticisms (it is a rant after all) but that is not really my intent. This post is about evidence. It's about staying through to the logical conclusion and considering the consequences. If I claim X, then what are all of the things X leads to? What about Y?
I will give you an example of unintended consequences.

Does, "Every time I see the word 'commandment' in the New Testament, it means the Ten Commandments," really make sense? Sabbatarians use this thinking to support the Sabbath, citing verses like John 14:15:

(JON. 14:15) If you love Me, keep My commandments.

So, Jesus is advocating the Ten Commandments and we should all observe the Sabbath day. Right?
Then explain Hebrews 7:18, or Romans 7:10, or Ephesians 2:15.
If "commandments" means "Ten Commandments" then the Ten are annulled. That's what it says! Saying "commandment" means "Ten Commandments" might get us what we want in a soundbite proof-text of John 14:15, but that exact same standard in other verses blows our own goal out of the water. We cannot say it only means the Ten Commandments when it gets us what we want, but turn right around and deny this very same thing when it does not get us what we want.
But when I point this out, what is the usual response? "God's law is eternal!" "God's law is not a burden!" Not, "Huh. I didn't realize I had built my case on a double-standard. Perhaps I should think about this."

Do you see the conflict?

Sabbatarianism makes little edits as it goes along, all the while claiming it is not editing anything. The New Covenant must become a simple continuation of the Old ... only with more people and less laws. The claim is the New Covenant did nothing to change God's eternal and perfect law ...except discard 97% of it, and rewrite what's left so it is not only for Israel anymore, and make it much harder. Other than those fundamental changes, nothing changed in any way. (Yes, that was sarcasm there.)

Therefore, it is necessary for Sabbatarianism to believe two opposing and utterly incompatible things at the same time:

1) That the law is eternal and universal and perfect and cannot be changed,
and
2) That the New Covenant ejected most of the law and fundamentally changed the rest.

This struggle - we must keep the eternal and perfect law, but to keep the law we must change the law - directly affects even the very Ten Commandments themselves; the most central and sacrosanct and perfect and eternal and unchanging and universal laws of them all. The Ten were written for Israel alone, so those details are conveniently edited out. That is what precisely what we reviewed in "Editing the Commandments".

No one seems to notice that there is no way to escape the law being changed. If it started out at creation applying to all people, then it was changed later when it was rewritten to be for Israel. That's a change! And if it is now once again for all people, then it was changed to be rewritten to take out the Israel-specific parts again. That's a change! If it was once "letter of the law," then it was changed to now be "spirit of the law". That's a change!
We believed "the law changed not because God changes not" -and- that the law keeps getting changed.

Do you see the conflict?

And what about Gentile inclusion? Some Sabbatarians, most notably Adventists, claim God is not calling the world at this time; He is only calling certain people. Armstrongists, a branch of Adventism, say God is only calling people who are secretly Israelites. I refer to British-Israelism/Anglo-Israelism. So, does the law apply to everyone, or must you be secretly an Israelite for it to apply? And if you're an Israelite, then how can it be that circumcision doesn't apply to you? If you really are an Israelite, as you claim, then avoiding circumcision does not exempt you from the law, it gets you exiled from Israel. That's the law! You are beholden to the whole law no matter what you do. No law buffet for you.

Now, at the exact same time, according to Armstrong, the law is being purposefully hidden from most people by God because they don't love the law. But we also claimed people need the Holy Spirit or it is literally impossible for them to comprehend that they need the law. They cannot understand that they need to keep the law in the first place unless God reveals it to them, but He is hiding it from them because they do not understand that they need to keep the law. And so He calls secret Israelites to keep it, and the rest await a terrible punishment for not doing what they literally could not do.

Do you see the conflict?

Circling back again to where we began, the belief that sin and righteousness come from laws rather than the nature of a perfectly righteous God and our faithful relationship with Him, is at the heart of all of this, and it introduces a whole series of dilemmas to contend with. Sabbatarianism is locked into a dance between law and grace, New and Old, covenant and terms, changing and unchanging, perfect and flawed, binding and deprecated, spirit and letter, goal and end, moral and ceremonial, Jew and Gentile, literal and figurative, scripture and literature, history and conspiracy, Greek and English, lie and true, etc etc etc. On and on and on.

The inner conflict isn't just here and there every once in a while. It's the whole thing.
And all this time all they needed to accept is that Christ is sufficient.

CONCLUSION

There is a peculiar thing that happens when a doctrine starts in the wrong place: it ends in the wrong place, and everything afterward has to be adjusted to protect it.

• A word doesn't fit? Use a concordance to redefine it.
• A verse doesn't quite fit? Call it a "difficult scripture" and explain it differently.
• A chapter doesn't quite fit? Isolate a verse.
• An entire book doesn't quite fit? Pull out a few individual proof-texts.
• The Jerusalem Council doesn't fit? Change what the Council was actually deciding.
• The New Covenant doesn't fit? Make it a mere continuation of the Old Covenant, where the parts you need continue on and the rest falls away.
• A language doesn't fit? Treat it like it was originally written in English.
• History doesn't fit? Say it was corrupted and change it to how it should have been.
• Other systems don't fit? Write them all off as pagans.

Eventually, we can make almost anything fit. But there is a problem with that approach:
At some point, the sheer number of adjustments becomes evidence that the problem isn't with the words, the verses, the chapters, the books, the councils, or the history.

Sabbatarianism is swimming in a pool of inner conflict. How many contradictions and conflicts and fallacies and bandaged cracks must we endure before we say, "STOP! This is evidence that something is fundamentally very wrong. I need to go back and rethink my most basic starting point. I need to see what happens if I change the equation."
I suggest you start with: What if righteousness and sin do not require a written law?

I know how it feels to face this daunting task. I went through it myself. It is more than just daunting; it's terrifying. And to be fair, all systems have caused certain problems while trying to answer other problems. This is the human condition. This is not a perfect world that we live in. I am not saying Sabbatarianism is very wrong but Mainstream Christianity is very right ...or that I have it so right.

All I am claiming about myself is: I was once an Armstrongist Sabbatarian ...until I couldn't be anymore. Because I asked what if.

As Bereans Did has several articles intended to help people see that there are other things to consider here, other ways to look at verses, other critical facts that have been left out of the Sabbatarian equation.

Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
The Road to Sabbatarianism - Part I
If You Love Me Keep My Commandments
What Does The New Testament Teach About Law and Grace?
Sunday, or Herbert Armstrong?
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
What Did Jesus Say In Relation To The Sabbath?
The Covenant and The Testimony

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

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

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

Spiritual — Carnal

It is written that the carnally minded cannot comprehend matters that are spiritual.

(1 Corinthians 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

(Romans 8:6-7) For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The carnal minded, who thinks himself spiritual, reads this passage and concludes the “law of God” here is the old covenant Decalogue: The Ten Commandments, ignoring the context.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

(Romans 8:2-4) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

It is the New Covenant law of faith and the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus that is THE “law of God” in this context. The result of this “law of God” is to be freed from the previous “law of sin and death” that Paul further describes in 2Corinthians chapter 3 as the ‘ministration of condemnation and death, engraven in stones.’

Only one law was ever “engraven in stones.” But the carnal mind cannot comprehend this and the consequences of it. The carnal mind that is desperately trying to insulate itself, cannot and will not, on its own, ever come to admit it is wrong. Such a person needs the law of sin and death to be “God’s law” of life, due to the investment such people have in that law.

The result? One’s beliefs are used to understand the scriptures, instead of allowing the scriptures to establish their beliefs.

There ‘was’ a law that dealt with carnal people, led by their corrupt flesh, that rightly, justly, condemned them for what they are, being sinful flesh; a law rife with physical rites and rituals that later were to be revealed as typology of Spiritual things, even so revealed in the previous writings of the prophets who spoke of a circumcision of the heart and not just the physical rite done in the flesh.

With the present law of faith and the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, there remains those who, being led by their pulls of the fleshly desires, cannot comprehend this law, resulting in their faithlessness in this regard; a sin of the mind, soul, and heart; a spiritual sin. The sin of faithlessness; “lawlessness” in relation to this spiritual law.

The carnal mind is an evil, iniquitous mind, heart, and soul. Only God can change it, and the change begins with belief; faith; TRUST in God, solely and completely.

Otherwise, such people remain as they are, reliant on the false hope of a law designed to condemn evil works and the evil people who produce them, who steadfastly resist the Holy Spirit, even as did those Pharisees in the Sanhedrin who condemned both Jesus and Stephen, using the old covenant law of sin and death to do so.

Jesus referred to the law as “their” law; not His law. He attributed that law to Moses; not Himself or the Father.

The stiff-necked and rebellious today simply ignore what does not fit into their established belief model.

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

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

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

Good Works - Evil Works

There are good works and there are evil works

Good works are always good works. Evil works are always evil works.

Good people, out of the treasures of their good hearts, will produce good works.

Evil people, out of the treasures of their evil hearts, will produce evil works.

(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.

Who said this? Christ Jesus; God Incarnate. He is the way, the truth, and the life. He knows truth. He is Truth.

He further elaborates on this theme here:

(Matthew 7:16-20) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

What can we conclude from these words of Christ Jesus?

That each group of people can only produce fruits commensurate with what they are.

What then can we reasonably conclude when it comes to those deemed “corrupt trees” who, being in possession of a “deceitful and desperately wicked heart” would do?

They would try to make their evil works look like good works, and make the works of good people look like evil works in an attempt to flip the narratives in their favor.

Enter, the works of the law.

They are pawned off as good works, and any transgression of the works of the law to be evil works.

Specific to this today with modern day Sabbatarians is the manipulation of the Sabbath so that an otherwise good work any other day transforms into an evil work if done on the Sabbath, in direct contradiction to what Jesus, the “Lord of the Sabbath” had to say in that regard, where He declared good works lawful on the Sabbath, where the work in question is already established as a good work regardless of the Sabbath.

Through this manipulation of works in relation to the Sabbath, those whose works are all evil in the sight of God can not only give the appearance of doing good by keeping the Sabbath, they can also use the transgression of the Sabbath by those who are otherwise producing good works even on the Sabbath to be charged with evil and sin, fulfilling the desire of an evil hearted person to vent their evil through accusations against otherwise good works and those good people carrying them out.

Evil revelry

(Hosea 2:10-13) And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of mine hand. I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts. And I will destroy her vines and her fig trees, whereof she hath said, These are my rewards that my lovers have given me: and I will make them a forest, and the beasts of the field shall eat them. And I will visit upon her the days of Baalim, wherein she burned incense to them, and she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgat me, saith the LORD.

They had a dedication to the Sabbath, new moons, and festivals, even taking delight in them. They kept the Sabbath “of God” while ignoring God, embracing foreign intrigue, a form of adultery in the eyes of God. God removed the Sabbath and those other observances from her.

Hearts far from God

(Matthew 15:8) This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

They went through the motions of religious obeisance.

It can hardly be claimed that the “obedience” to the law by the Pharisees and people was anything but outward show and appearance. Jesus still referred to those Pharisees as children of the devil, doing the will of their father the devil… and they kept the Sabbath, with the result in keeping with what the devil wants; people deceived so that they think they are good, when in fact they are not, in denial over their true nature, all thanks to the works of the law, such as the Sabbath, convincing them they are good because they keep the law and Sabbath.

Prophetic end of the Sabbath

As pointed out above, through the prophet Hosea, God was going to put an end to the Sabbath, holy day festivals, and new moon celebrations. The interesting twist to the prophecy is in how it occurred, for prophesies rarely, if ever, are fulfilled in the manner people assume. The Hebrews / Jews ended up with another Sabbath that was not “the” Sabbath, in 359 AD, where Rabbi Hillel II created a new calendar that operated in similar fashion as did the Roman calendar, with fixed weeks, where the Jewish people at that time, with few exceptions, embraced the new calendar with a Sabbath based on the fixed week schema where the new moon celebrations were dropped due to a calendar no longer tied to the phases of the moon to determine the beginning of a lunar month. Holy days, such as Passover, were no longer observed in the manner prescribed by scripture, where only those residing in the land of Israel could observe it, and a number of feasts that could only be properly observed by being present in Jerusalem at the temple.

Ironically then, today’s Sabbatarians who take delight in accusing Christians of not keeping the Sabbath, thereby sinning against the law that to them defines sin through the transgression of that law; specifically the Decalogue, are themselves not keeping “the” Sabbath of Scripture that was dependent upon when the day of the new moon came about.

Of course, today’s self-proclaimed Sabbatarian rejects all this, as pointed out above, because it does not match up with their established beliefs whereby they in turn use them to interpret scripture to their liking.

There is no Sabbath to keep, and no Sabbath to transgress, as God did exactly as He said He would; do away with the weekly and annual Sabbaths, as well as the new moon celebrations, where they all accepted imitations; substitutions, apropos when you consider the constant mantra by Sabbatarians that others are keeping the wrong day; Sunday, that is actually an apples and oranges comparison. The Sabbath was strictly a day of rest from the labor performed the previous six days, where the day of the new moon was not a work day nor counted as such. Sundays, aka the first day of the week, was used, not for rest from labor, but for the early Christians to gather together for communal worship and prayer, either before going to work on that day, or later, after work, where any first day of any calendar was acceptable, seeing as none of this was in response to any Christian commandment to do so. It was done because they desired to do so, under the influence of the Holy Spirit guiding them.

Is it any wonder then that the same Sabbatarians decrying others not keeping their Sabbath would also attack and vilify the worship of God on what they perceive to be the “wrong day?”

Evil needs an outlet for their evil, often through accusations, even as the devil levels accusations against Christians before God.

(Revelation 12:10) And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Today’s Sabbatarians seek to alter good works into evil works through the use of a day; the Sabbath, in order to maintain the facade that works of the law, such as the Sabbath, and keeping the Sabbath, is a good work, even a part of the fruit of the Spirit… a “good work” on a day where one rests from “any” and all work...

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

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

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

Rejecting Truth

If a biblical text is plainly stated, yet you do not believe what it says due to the ramifications of what it means, your mind will redefine the passage in such a way as to make it conform to what you believe, and you will never be consciously aware of what you did.

Good works are lawful, on the Sabbath, where good works are contrasted to evil works.

A plainly stated truth, by Truth Incarnate, that Adventists do not believe. They redefine good and evil works, so that evil becomes good in some circumstances and good becomes evil.

If Sabbatarians actually believed Jesus; TRUTH Incarnate, they would be forced to abandon the Sabbath commandment, for ALL the works of a Christian; works now “wrought in God” to the glory of God, can never be construed as evil by God, who judges according to the heart; a new heart He gives the actual believer.

As God judges, all the works of those with the good heart He provides are seen as good works and never as evil, sinful works.

Those with the unregenerate hearts, labeled by God as “deceitful and desperately wicked” hearts; hearts of stone and evil hearts of unbelief, all works are deemed evil in His sight.

And despite all the biblical evidence to support all this, Sabbatarians will still reject all of it, for the Sabbath is more important to them than truth and God, and His Word.

What does this mean? That the Sabbath is held in higher esteem than God's revealed truths found in Scripture. The Sabbath is another god, not only “besides” God but greater than God, where they view Jesus as being subject to the Sabbath so that they unashamedly proclaim that had God Incarnate actually “worked” on the Sabbath He; God Incarnate, would have sinned.

When it came to the Sabbath, Jesus openly declared that what He did on the Sabbath was work and that even the Father in Heaven works on the Sabbath.

This rejection of what both the Father and the Son do on the Sabbath, doing only good works, is all you need to know when it comes to true Christians and false ones, who will deny God and what He plainly declared, recorded in the Scriptures.

They will not repent and believe the Gospel; salvation found solely in Christ Jesus. They follow another god where they believe they will be saved by doing what the Sabbath says to do; rest from their evil works, where not doing evil is seen as doing good, despite their evil hearts of unbelief where unbelief; faithlessness is lawlessness in regards to the New Covenant law of faith and the Spirit. They are without Spiritual law. They embrace the letter of the law that kills. They embrace the physically oriented commandment with physical rites and rituals, such as the Sabbath that was a physical rest from physical labor that was temporary, and where their evil works eventually lead to death; not life.

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

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

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

Distopian / Utopian and the Impact of Law

A number of years ago, I sat on a jury pool. The prosecuting attorney queried the jury pool,

“On a scale of 1 to 5, how important is law in a perfect society?”

I was sitting towards the back of the group, so most people answered before I did, and this gave me a bit more time to ponder the question. When it came to me, I answered: “Zero”. Curious, the prosecutor asked me why zero. I replied that in a perfect society, there would be no need for law, seeing as it was a perfect society, where no one did anything wrong.

Imagine at that moment the others in the jury pool coming to realize that this would be true, and perhaps some of them realized the question was dishonest to begin with, leading the jury pool to believe in the necessity of laws even in a supposedly Utopian society.

The prosecutor modified his question by stating it in terms of a society seeking to be perfect, which brings up an interesting aspect in this regard.

If your “perfect” society is built on a foundation of laws that punish law breakers, where the punishment is severe, that being the death sentence for any infraction, you will have a “perfect” society where no one does anything wrong, but your perfect society will be Distopian. The control is external. Like an beast, beaten into submission. All members of society are motivated by fear; dread. People motivated only to not be punished. Your law enforcement personnel will be more “Gestapo” than “Peace Keepers.” The safest place in such a society is to be a member in good standing within the “Politburo.” And even then, they fear the glorious leader.

The “ideal” Utopian society would be one not under such draconian laws or legal system built around punitive measures regarding transgressions of the law. The control is no longer external. Like a friend, cooperating to a common goal. People would be motivated to be doing good in relation to one another, with a system of reward for doing good; all sharing in the blessing. This Utopian state though would require a population not inclined to do bad (evil) things injurious to the society.

Given mankind’s overall present condition, as pointed out by God in Scripture, this Utopian state is not possible. Mankind’s state of being is that of people with what is called a “deceitful and desperately wicked heart,” a “heart of stone” that understands only one thing about behavior: that those who are caught doing wicked, evil things will be punished, severely.

Further complicating this Distopia is the unavoidable fact that even the enforcers of the law would themselves be in the same category as everyone else, possessed by an wicked, evil heart where they are quite aware that their position in society as one of the Politburo enforcers, effectively makes them immune to any prosecution of wrong doing as long as it can be made to look like they are doing their intended jobs within such a society.

This type of society is what has historically been the status quo. People adapt to it, even become comfortable with it, trying to make the best of it, all the while under the belief that no other, better way exists or could exist.

What no one talks about is that evil people who wrest power for themselves thrive in a dystopian system. A truly Utopian system would spell their ruin in this regard.

However, such a Utopian system of governance has its shortcomings.

It is predicated upon the cooperation of all parties to it. The closest any country has come has been the USA, established by men of faith, looking for the common good and self-governance based on the constituents being dedicated to the maintenance of that common good. But like as in nature, parasites are attracted to what is perceived as open ground for exploitation. On the other end of the spectrum are those who, through their inflated egos, the narcissists, believing that they are best suited for running things, being in command, and deciding what is best for society as a whole so that they actively yet surreptitiously, undermine any system of such self-governance, then turn around and decry the failure was due to the flaws within the system. Rather than cream rising to the top, the most ruthless rise.

(John 10:8) When Jesus; God Incarnate came among His own, as prophesied, His own rejected Him.

They had an established order, where Jesus stated publicly that “All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

He was their true and rightful King; their Ruler. But they were not going to give up without a fight, and they knew just how to manipulate the masses to rally behind them, despite the fear they instilled in them. The unspoken message was you either backed them, seeing as they administered the law, or they would subject you to the same treatment they applied to Jesus, using the law to their own advantage, manipulating the law; reinterpreting the law. Is it any wonder then that Jesus would berate them over their administration of the law, where they claimed and practiced obedience to it right down to the minutia of the law, tithing on the increase of even an herb garden, while ignoring the “weightier” matters of the law; justice, mercy, and faith; attributes they were incapable of embracing, being themselves among those with the deceitful and desperately wicked hearts of stone, whose only interest was their own aggrandizement and position within the Jewish society and social order.

God is preparing His governmental rule on earth where actual good people; those in possession of the “new heart” aka His Holy Spirit, are no longer subject to laws applied arbitrarily by people led by their own flesh; their evil, deceitful hearts of stone and unbelief. There is no need for them to be under and subjected to a law designed to punish evil doers, such as the old covenant law did. They are under another law, unlike any law ever made by man on earth; a law of faith and the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus that frees them from the previous law of sin and death, applicable only to those led by their self-centered flesh that seeks its own desires, often to the detriment of others.

In the end, it will be those led by the Spirit, in the kingdom of God populated by His children, only, where there will be no call for laws that governed the faithless and “lawless” who lived outside the jurisdiction of the law of faith and the Spirit.

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

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

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

Denying Babel, Erasing Israel

All attempts to get some Old Covenant law without actually entering the Old Covenant, to get what was given to Israel without joining Israel, are attempts to undo the rejection of the Gentiles without Christ's redemption.

---

In the past, we've talked about the many "back doors" which Sabbatarians create to sneak into the Old Covenant and snatch the Sabbath day along with a few other laws, leaving everything else behind. So many back doors! (For more, see the "Common Legalist Arguments" series.)
We have also talked about how God disinherited the Gentiles. When mankind rejected Him for the third time, God disinherited them. Immediately after Babel, He called Abraham to be the father of the covenant people Israel who would eventually be the means for the coming of the Messiah who was destined to heal the rejection of the Gentiles. (For more, see "Once and Future Kingdom - Part II" and the "What of the Gentiles" series.)
We have talked about how Israel was formed to be the covenant nation. The law and the prophets were given to Israel alone. If you wanted a relationship with the true God, you joined Israel. You joined Israel, you got the law. You can easily see the law was for Israel just by reading how it was written. (For more, see the "Acts 15" series and "Editing the Commandments".)

There is a very distinct difference between Jew and Gentile in the Old Testament. To Israel were given "the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises" (ROM. 9:4). Gentiles were strangers to these things (EPH. 2:12); sinners and worshippers of demons. Yet, they were destined to be redeemed by the Messiah (GEN. 12:3).

To sum up, for today's post we need to have in mind these three things:
1) Modern Gentile Sabbatarians want some of the law, so they say the law is for all, 2) but ancient Gentiles were disinherited until Messiah could redeem them and were strangers to the covenant with its laws, 3) and the law was given to the covenant people Israel to guard them until Messiah could come, so if you want the covenant law you must join Israel.

But Sabbatarianism says no, the law was for all mankind.

ERASE AND REPLACE

While writing the Acts 15 articles, these points came together and something occurred to me. All of these back doors into the Old Covenant and claims of universal laws that we've reviewed over the years are really attempts to vacate God's decision to disinherit the Gentiles. To break into the Old Covenant, shove Israel aside, and take what was given to them. Since the Gentiles were disinherited and the only way to bring them back was to send the Messiah to redeem them, claiming the covenant law secretly belonged to the world, that is the Gentiles, is also an attempt at redemption without the Redeemer.
In short, saying the law really belonged to mankind all these centuries is a denial that Gentiles were disinherited, which means they never needed a Redeemer, and is also a usurpation of what was given to Israel. 

Denying Babel and erasing Israel. Consciously done with forethought and intent? No. But it is what it is all the same.
And that's a good thing? That's "obedience"?

You might be wondering how I came to those conclusions.

The now defunct Old Covenant with its terms - its laws - applied to Israel. Alone. It says this repeatedly. I'm not talking about an edited, romanticized, "the law predated Israel" version of the law. I mean the actual law as written. The law. Look through the Ten Commandments. It's even in the very description of the glorious Sabbath day itself:

(EXO. 31:13, 16-17) 13 “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. ... 16 Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.

Between God and Israel, forever; not God and everyone.

Three times in four verses it makes this clear. Sabbatarians ignore this and claim these verses say the Sabbath was for all mankind because verse 17 mentions creation. Read it carefully. It does not say the Sabbath was created on day 7. It does not say it was commanded for mankind on day 7. It says God rested on day 7. Everything else is assumed in.
As an aside, someone might wonder how else it should be understood. Verse 17 is saying that because God rested on the seventh day of creation, therefore He put Israel's Sabbath rest on the seventh day of the week. (Note, no mention of going to church.) The Sabbath draws imagery from creation. It is not saying the Sabbath was created and given to all mankind on the seventh day of creation. Genesis 2 doesn't say that either. (For more, see "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2".)

If it was an obligation for all, then how is it a special sign for Israel .. a special sign for Israel forever? Doesn't a sign require some kind of exclusivity?

If the Old Covenant with its terms - the law - applied to all mankind and not to Israel alone, then what was the point of Israel? If we say, "Look what God says to us," when we turn to Exodus or Leviticus (just for example), then what was given to Israel? If we say, "The Covenant is for everyone," then what was the Covenant with Israel for?
If the law is for people outside the covenant, then what is the point of being inside? If the Sabbath is for the stranger, then what does it mean to be part of the community? What is disinheritance if it is the same as inheritance?  Paul might as well have said, "What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Meh. What's the difference?"

This Sabbatarian view looks to me like rank usurpation of Israel's place as the chosen people of the Old Covenant. Is this not a denial that the Gentiles were in fact disinherited to begin with? Is that not a countermanding of God's judgment? It vacates God's decision. What gives man the right to overrule God?

Denying Babel and erasing Israel.

VEGAS-STYLE

Sabbatarianism doesn't want the whole law from Israel, though. No. Only some laws. Herbert Armstrong claimed if circumcision were required then the whole law would be required, including the ceremonial law. And he was right! That's exactly what Paul said. Because in this context, it would mean you've joined Israel and taken on Israel's covenant responsibilities. But Armstrong' thought he'd found a loophole. His point was, if circumcision is avoided then we are free to keep some of the law without being obligated to all of it. That is what he took away from reading Acts 15.
Think about this, though.
The inescapable result of that virtual "law buffet" is that we've just undermined everything from Abraham to Jesus. How so? Because it circumvents Abraham and Israel and Jesus.

How does it circumvent Abraham and Israel?

Circumcision was the act, the sign and seal, which entered a man and his family into the Abrahamic covenant. Jew and Gentile alike. If a Gentile did these things, he joined Israel and ceased being a Gentile. If a Jew would not do these things, they were cut off from their people. Upon entering the Abrahamic Covenant, these ones were joined to the covenant people of Israel. By joining Israel they were also bound to Israel's Old Covenant obligations - all of them. The Covenant and its law is a singular, indivisible whole. Each person may not have been required to observe every last one of the 613 laws, but they were bound to it all. And the act, the sign and seal, of their participation in the Old Covenant was the Sabbath day.
Circumcision → join Israel → Old Covenant law → Sabbath day.
Herbert Armstrong said if you avoid the first sign (and thus circumvent Abraham), you are free to get Israel's signs and laws without joining them (and thus circumvent Israel). To claim what is Israel's without any right.

Erasing Israel.

Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not steal"? Excuse me if I don't agree that is what the Apostles proposed and the believing Pharisees aligned to.

How does it circumvent Jesus?

Consider this - if we can do that now, if we can circumvent Abraham and Israel to have a "law buffet" now, then we could always have done it.
Circumcision and the Sabbath were the signs of two covenants that the Gentiles were not part of. In those days, God was not their God and they were not His people. The means for Gentiles to be reclaimed was Jesus. A Gentile's choices were join Israel or wait for the Jesus. But if those Gentiles could simply sidestep Abraham and Israel to ingratiate themselves back into God's good graces on their own, then they have circumvented Jesus. This is another way of saying those Gentiles of old could un-reject themselves; undo God's judgment after Babel. No need for a Redeemer. No Messiah necessary. No Israel necessary. They simply vacate God's judgment, and all it took was avoiding circumcision.

Denying Babel.

We've just undermined everything from Abraham to Jesus. "Hi God! We know you kicked us out, but we've thought about it and we've decided we're back. Shabbat Shalom!"

Are you objecting? Then you're objecting that it can be done now as well! And I agree with you.

"But Jesus is my Redeemer," I will no doubt hear. Yes ... if you accept Him as such. Please do! But is He really? He did not redeem us into the Old Covenant but the New (GAL. 4:21-31). If He truly is your Redeemer, then what is with these many attempts to find a back door into the Old Covenant to get that shiny, candy-like law you so covet (GAL. 5:4)??

Do some not covet?
Look at how some want to usurp Israel. Look at British-Israelism/Anglo-Israelism. They defy all history and genetics so they can pretend to be Israel in order to take what is not theirs. A hundred versions of where and how it played out, and none agree. Or look at the way they call themselves the 144,000. Meaning, the 144,000 from the book of Revelation. A group who is described in exclusively Israelite terms. Or look at the way some pretend to speak Hebrew. "Jesus wasn't His name, it was [insert spelling of the month]." Yah, Yahashua, Yeshua, Yoshua, Yahua, Jehovah, etc etc etc. Changing all the time. A hundred spellings and they're all the most correct one. Arguing amongst themselves over the right way to to render the Hebrew into English, as if Hebrew is some magic spell that will grant you special power. "I say Yasheshuech rather than Jesus, and sh'abbat rather than Sabbath. God will hear me but not you!" (Jesus likely spoke Aramaic, based on certain words He used. Guess how His name would have been spelled. Not Hebrew. Most of the New Testament was written in Greek. Guess how the Apostles wrote His name. Not Hebrew.)
Is that not usurping Israel? Is that not covetousness?

The catch-22 here is, if you are Israel, then you are beholden to all of Israel's covenant responsibilities. Avoiding circumcision will not help you. The "law buffet" is closed. Can't have it both ways.

THE NEW OLD COVENANT

Someone might say to me that this 'bypass circumcision' option only became available after Jesus. Then why claim the law was always for the world? That's not after Jesus. But this 'after Jesus' claim doesn't make things better. It means A) Jesus fundamentally modified the Old Covenant rather than ending it at His death and replacing it with the New Covenant, and B) takes us right back again to the heart of what the Jerusalem Council was debating.

In the Jerusalem Council, the choices were:
A) [Pharisees] circumcision → join Israel → Old Covenant law, as it had always been, or
B) [Apostles] the Gentiles were cleansed and elect without joining Israel, and thus they were not entering into any of Israel's legal obligations. Gentiles were not joining Israel and the Old Covenant; all were joining the Body of Christ in the New Covenant.
It's A) all, or B) nothing. There is no C) law buffet.

The usual response to this is, "One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you." But no. Only if the Gentile was intent on joining in the worship of God. Exodus 12:49 appears in a section that literally spells this out. Same with Numbers 15:16. Citing these "one law" verses to claim the Gentiles were expected to keep the law without joining Israel is not getting around the problem I am describing, it is exactly the problem I am describing (good thing it's a bad reading).
The only laws the Apostles required of the Gentiles were the laws that always applied to all Gentiles in Israel, whether they were joining the worship of God or not. And James confirmed this years later in Acts 21. Who had the law and the traditions? The Jewish converts. Who was taught no such thing? The Gentile converts. (For more, see "Acts 15 - What Was Debated?".)

No, this 'bypass circumcision to get some law' option did not become available after Jesus. It was never an option. There was never the possibility of sitting on a fence between the Old Covenant and the New; truly satisfying neither. Either you believe Jesus did something utterly game-changing, or you believe He did practically nothing. Take your pick. Either way, there is no law buffet.

That isn't what Sabbatarianism needs to happen, though. With option C we are right back again to nullifying everything from Abraham to Jesus. And around and around we shall go.

SAY MY NAME

"It's God's law!" Yes, but to whom? The Sabbath was a sign to whom forever? The Ten Commandments were for whom? The law itself literally says it's for Israel. Over and over and over again. To get that law, Sabbatarianism erases Israel and inserts themselves. Every time Sabbatarians erase Israel - saying things like, "Moses told people," (meaning us) or "God said to us," etc etc - they show how they believe the Gentiles were not strangers at all and there was no substantive point to Israel.

Take this meme pictured here for one example of myriads. Ignore the obvious 'doom and gloom' emotional manipulation and just look at the first line. "Moses told the people," it says. Is there anything odd about that? I asked the author a simple question: "What people?" That's literally all I said. The author clearly did not like this and responded rather harshly, "If you are asking that question, that’s telling me you don’t understand history, biblical history and you lack hermeneutics! I will not entertain arguments here." To which I responded, "Why not just write the people to whom Moses spoke?" No response.

What about my question was so threatening? There is a one-word answer, and it would be simple to write: Israel.
Moses did not tell "people" (meaning the world); he told Israel.

But we can't have that, can we? We need to edit Israel out so we can replace it with "us" because the goal is to get that law (some of it), to take what is not ours, and to look sanctimonious and holy and obedient as we do it. Consider the absurdity: We disobey God if we don't vacate God's judgment against the Gentiles, replace Israel as the chosen people, heavily edit the law so we can keep a small fraction of it, and do it all through backdoors!?!
"We're obeying!"
Sure you are!

You know exactly what was threatening about my question. The author knew it. Her statement, "I will not entertain arguments here," gives it away. All that, "you don’t understand history," stuff was just bluster and distraction. She knew that to say "Israel" was to betray her goal. That is why she snapped at me.

CONCLUSION

This is what goes on behind the curtain:
Reverse Gentile disinheritance → replace Israel → heavily edit the law → retain a fraction of it → claim we love Torah and we're obeying God's will.
I reject all of that.

Here is what I see in the Bible:
Gentile disinheritance → Israel called and given the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the service of God, and the promises → Messiah comes and dies to redeem us → believing Jews and Gentiles join the Body of Christ → following the Holy Spirit into righteousness by faith expressed in acts of love.

It's better to give than receive, but it's better to receive than to take.

I do have a deep respect for the law, even if I don't believe the letter of those written codes directly apply to me. There is much to be learned from the law even if it was not mine to keep. And what do I respect most? The law shows my insufficiency and need for a Savior. Those laws belonged to Israel. It is their heritage. I can't have the law ...unless I join Israel. In which case I get all the law, including its condemnations (GAL. 5:3). But that's the wrong Covenant.

Know that those things we look to get from the law, like righteousness and obedience, do not come from the law in the first place. Sabbatarianism confuses law with righteousness. True righteousness does not come from the law. The law shows us that we are not righteous, then punishes us for it. So why do we pursue it? Rather, pursue what can bring these things. The righteousness God is looking for, the righteousness the patriarchs had, is the righteousness which only comes by faith - His own righteousness. In us and credited to us by faith from first to last.
Sabbatarianism goes chasing after the wrong thing in the wrong place, and causes chaos along the way.

There is no back door into the Old Covenant. There is no secret tunnel to the Sabbath day. The buffet is a lie. Changing Genesis 2 is pointless. Misquoting Mark 2 will not avail. Bypassing Israel or pretending to be Israel is futile. Just let what was written be what it is. The Gentiles were on the outside; Israel was not. If you are a Gentile, then accept it. Own it. Take the L. Have that humility. Be all the more thankful for what God did through Jesus Christ. Join the New Covenant. Our efforts at changing the law to make it applicable to all people circumvents the old process and the new. It undermines everything from Abraham to Jesus. It devalues the Jews. It vacates God's judgment. It diminishes the Messiah. I want nothing to do with this.

I have an underlying theme in my articles which isn't readily apparent: Christ is sufficient. In this case, it takes the form of Christ is the door, and anyone who enters in any other way is a thief and a robber. I could title this article "Christ is the door."

I am a Gentile. I have no business in this, in and of myself. I am excluded from those things. Hopeless. But thanks only to the grace of God, I am now redeemed by the blood of Jesus. Those who were not His are again His. Only by being grafted into Him are we inheritors of the promises to Abraham. As Paul said; a tree we do not naturally belong in. Not because of the law and not to law-keeping, but to faith in Christ expressed in love. I should be eternally grateful to Christ for this thing which He didn't have to do and I didn't earn. 

I enter by the front door. As for me and my house, Christ is sufficient.

As Bereans Did has several articles intended to help people see that there are other things to consider here, other ways to look at verses, other critical facts that have been left out of the Sabbatarian equation

Editing the Ten Commandments
Common Legalist Arguments - Part I
If You Love Me Keep My Commandments
The Covenant and The Testimony
What Does The New Testament Teach About Law and Grace?
Confusing the Covenants
Parties to the Covenants
Is Ceremonial Law Removed?
Without Law There Is No Sin
What Use Is The Old Law?
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
Are The Ten Commandments Removed?
Is the Sabbath A Test Commandment?
Acts 15 - More Law Later?

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

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

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