Editing The Commandments

Everyone knows the Ten Commandments begin with "You shall have no other gods before Me." But that's not actually where the Ten Commandments begin. The very first words of the Decalogue send a message that we must not ignore.

---

Going to church on a particular day of the week is the key doctrine that sets Sabbatarianism apart from other Christian groups. Going to church on Saturday is central to how they believe the Sabbath functions, which has far-reaching effects on how they believe Christianity functions.
But we must ask ... is that what the Fourth Commandment says to do? No. It is not. When we read the Old Testament, do we see corporate worship as the way the Sabbath rest was observed? No. We do not.

So, we find the Fourth Commandment has been altered a bit. Of course, that's where the excuses begin (we have articles on that). But now we must ask ... where else has the "perfect and unchanging" law been edited?

I know of a surprising place, and we don't have to go far to find it.

One of the main supporting reasons for seventh-day Sabbath observance is that it is found in the Ten Commandments. It's the Fourth Commandment don't ya know. The claim is everyone must "keep" the Sabbath because the Ten Commandments are universal and given to the whole world. Sabbatarianism absolutely requires this.
But we must ask ... is this what the Bible says? More specifically, is that what the Ten Commandments themselves actually say?

Let's walk through this together and see it for ourselves. Go in your mind's eye back to Mt. Sinai. Imagine we are witnessing that time and place.

WHO ARE YOU

Israel was formed by God to be a distinct and separate people. The Old Testament is the story of Israel. Most Sabbatarians accept it was written by and about Israel, but still read it like it was written directly to them.

So, we need these two Sabbatarian ideas in mind: 1) the Ten are eternal and unchanging, and 2) the Ten are for the whole world.

Now, let's read the beginning of the First Commandment:

(EXO. 20:2) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Have you ever stopped and contemplated this verse? It says so very much.

This is the very first sentence in the Ten; the primary introduction of God, to describe who He is. And who is He? The One who saved "you" from slavery in Egypt.

God is very specific about who He is. His "name" is a description of what He is. Until this, God was mainly seen as the Almighty God who created and possessed heaven and earth. Or, He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (as opposed to the Gentiles). Or, He is the one who exists (I Am). This verse changes things. Now, He stresses His identity as "your" God, the one who rescued "you".

Who is "you"? Who had been in bondage in Egypt? Who was God addressing? You are there, in your mind's eye, at a mountain in the desert, and apart from the crowd at the mountain there isn't another human soul around for miles; who is He talking to? There is only one answer: Israel. Israel and none other.

Please pay very close attention to three key things here:

1. He says, "your God". Sure, He is the Creator and God over all things, all the world is His, but the world had rejected Him and He disinherited the nations (temporarily), and so the Gentiles were not His people at this time; only Israel was. He was the God of Israel.
2. The word "Israel" does not appear in that verse. The words "you" and "your" are used. He was addressing Israel audibly, directly, and specifically. How do we know it was Israel? Because He says so in other places and because no other nation was saved by God from bondage in Egypt and taken to the promised land. That's what Exodus is about.
3. The words "you" and "your" are singular, not plural. Israel is addressed as a singular whole, just as the Covenant is a singular whole. One covenant for one people.

You and your. The Ten Commandments were specifically for Israel, the people who were saved from Egypt. It's right there in the first sentence of the Decalogue! Let's read the entire First Commandment together:

(EXO. 20:2-3) 2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 You shall have no other gods before Me.

When I was younger, I read that as if that "you" meant me; God was speaking to me. He wasn't. That "you" meant Israel. I am a Gentile. God was not the God of the Gentiles at that time. We chose idolatry. We were purposefully given over to other gods as part of our disinheritance. Israel being commanded to have no other gods is key to their distinction from the Gentiles. If we make that "you" and "your" about us, then that's a change.

Now, let's take what we've learned here and apply it elsewhere.

(EXO. 20: 7a) You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

Whose God? Israel's God.
Now we have to edit the Third Commandment, too. But that's not all.

(EXO. 20:12) Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

Whose God? Who was getting land? It was called the land of what? Israel.
Now we have to edit the Fifth Commandment as well. Look what editing the First Commandment has caused!

Some try to get around this by mentioning the Gentiles who came out of Egypt with Israel. Some Gentiles did come out with Israel, but does that actually change anything we are looking at? No. That they were there does not change the fact that Israel was the one and only covenant nation. Again, look at the wording throughout; it says "house of bondage" (v2), "the land which the Lord your God is giving you" (v12), and "You shall say to the children of Israel" (v22). The Bible never says those Gentiles were in bondage in Egypt. You really only have two good options: either those Gentiles were incorporated into the nation of Israel, or they were not incorporated and thus weren't the ones God was addressing.

Let's take this one step farther.

In proper Bible study, we must always ask, "Who is the intended audience and how would they have understood this?"

Who were the Ten given to? The nation of Israel (the physical nation of Israel, specifically). Israel is the direct intended audience. The rest of us are merely overhearing the conversation.
And how did Israel understand it? 

(DEU. 5:3) The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive.

Israel understood this as being specifically to them and with them. If it didn't even apply to their own ancestors, then how could it apply to the entire world? It cannot. The Ten cannot be universal if the Decalogue itself, even in the very First Commandment, makes it clear they were for Israel.

"You" and "your" is Israel. "You" and "your" is singular, a singular whole. One single body of law for one singular people. For Sabbatarianism to work, it needs the Ten to apply to all. And for the Ten to apply to all, the Commandments must be changed.

COVENANT

It is clear that everyone involved understood what was happening at Mount Sinai to be the beginning of the Covenant with Israel. We call it the Old Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant, and even the Mosaic Covenant. And the Ten are the very foundational words of that Covenant. Seriously, how many times over the years have I reminded readers of these verses:

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

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

(DEU. 9: 9) When I went up into the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water.

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

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

And the tablets of the covenant were kept in what? The Ark of the Covenant. (For more, read "The Covenant and The Testimony", which BTW I wrote in 2009; As Bereans Did has been reminding people of this for years.)

So, not only are the Ten given to Israel only, but they are the very foundation of the Old Covenant that God made only with the covenant people Israel ... and which has since ended.

A covenant is between parties; specifically stated parties, and only those parties. In this case, two parties. Verse 2 is the introduction of God, the primary party to the Covenant. It also introduces Israel, the second party to the covenant. "I am the Lord your God." The Ten cannot be universal if the Decalogue itself is the foundation of the Covenant between God and Israel alone.

One might argue, "But they are universal moral principles. They have to be for everyone." It is debatable that the Fourth is moral but it is clear the others are ... but not because of the law. We've been reading it for ourselves. The letter of the law is not universal. The law was written in a way that is specifically for Israel. The solution given in the Old Testament was, if you want these to apply to you, then you get circumcised and join Israel. I've said in other places what can and does make moral principles universal. (Hint: it's not law-keeping.)

The Old Covenant with its terms, the law, was made with Israel alone. For Sabbatarianism to work, it needs the covenant law to apply to all. If you make that "you" and "your" stop referring directly to Israel and make it refer to yourself, that's a change to the eternal and perfect and unchanging law. For the law to apply to all, the Commandments must be changed.

WHAT TO DO

Having cast their lot in with the Ten Commandments, Sabbatarians are now forced to do something with Exodus 20:2. That one is the key; verses 7 & 12 hang on it.

Glossing straight over it seems to be the preferred method of dealing with it. Most articles will not display verse 2 at all. Some articles will display it, but then ignore it like it isn't there, proceeding straight on to verse 3. Most start the Ten at verse 3, not verse 2, like in the image here. Skipping verse 2 makes it a lot easier to insert "me" or "we" where it absolutely does not belong. They also drop the second half of verse 12. (I realize it would be difficult to put every word of the Ten on any image, but this image is only meant to illustrate the point I am making.)

There are really only two ways to handle Exodus 20:2 - either you take it literally (like I do), or you take it figuratively (like I do).

If you take it literally, in a more Old Covenant sense, then we must ask why does this apply to anyone but Israel? When were you a slave in Egypt? When did God save you from Egypt, march you through the desert, and speak these words to you at Mt. Sinai? When did God give you a land?
I do take it literally, and I argue the Old Covenant and its terms, the law, does not apply to anyone else besides Israel ... because that's exactly who it says it was given to.

If you take it figuratively, in a more New Covenant sense, then we must ask why can't we also take the Sabbath command figuratively? If we can change "you" and "your" into everyone, and change "rest" into church, and change "bondage" into sin, and change "land" into God's kingdom, then why can't we change "day" into Jesus? If we can interpret Egypt as metaphor for sin and our rescue from Egypt/sin is in Christ (which most Christians do, including Sabbatarians), then why not interpret the Old Covenant's rest for the rump as a shadow of our New Covenant rest for the very soul in Christ (COL. 2: 16-17)?
I do take it figuratively, and I do think sin is our Egypt from which God rescues us so that we can finally find peace and rest in His victory over sin and the grave. I argue the spirit of the law is what matters in the New Covenant, not the letter, and I do think the point of the Sabbath is a rest rather than church attendance, and spirit of that rest is a true spiritual rest in Jesus Christ rather than setting up chairs at church on Saturday (or Sunday for that matter).

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot edit the law to get it to apply to everyone and church, then when it comes to the Sabbath day demand the law is eternal and perfect and unchanging.

Neither of those are comfortable options for a Sabbatarian system which must make the law about Gentiles and about church; and to do that it must change the law and then keep it changed.

CONCLUSION

"You" and "your", they mean Israel.

Sabbatarianism promotes these two ideas: 1) the Ten are eternal and unchanging, and 2) the Ten are for the whole world. But what we find is the Ten Commandments were given as the foundation of the Covenant made with Israel alone. The First, Third, and Fifth Commandments are worded specifically for Israel, and the Fourth Commandment says nothing about corporate worship. So, Sabbatarianism makes the necessary changes.

"God's eternal, perfect, and unchanging law! Well, except for these laws we don't keep and these foundational details we've rewritten."

It seems clear the Bible is being manipulated to achieve a desired end. Israel is removed so that all mankind can be inserted, into a covenant which was dissolved nearly 2,000 years ago, so that we can all go to church on Saturday because our whole identity rests on a law that says nothing about going to church.

And why? Because some think righteousness and sin come from laws rather than the nature of God, and our oneness with Him through faith alone. I think another key underlying issue going on is what I mentioned in "The Road to Sabbatarianism - Part II": people do not seem to understand that the Old Testament was not written to us; it was written for us.

I'm not arguing against the moral principles contained within the Ten Commandments. I am arguing against selectively editing the legal terms of the Old Covenant so they can command what they do not command and apply to whom they do not apply. I am arguing against taking laws of the Old Covenant, editing them to change primary details - like who God is, what the law is, what the law says, and who the law was given to - then claiming we're just doing what God wants.
If you are changing the law, then you're not "keeping" the law.

What starts as "the law says" will inevitably become "the law needs to say". And the one thing Sabbatarianism needs the law to say more than anything else is that the "you" and "your" refers to "us". But they don't.

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.

If You Love Me Keep My Commandments
Are The Ten Commandments Removed?
Is the Sabbath A Test Commandment?
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?
Constantine vs The Sabbath
The Covenant and The Testimony
Common Legalist Arguments - Part II
The Road to Sabbatarianism - Part I
Is Ceremonial Law Removed?
Without Law There Is No Sin
What Use Is The Old 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

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

Lawless

(1 Timothy 1:9-11) 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 John 3:4) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

The phrase, “the transgression of the law” is derived from the a single Greek word, “anomia”, translated into English as “evil”, “iniquity”, “lawlessness” where “lawlessness” comes close to the literal 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”:

(Romans 8:1-2) 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.

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.”

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

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.

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

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?

(John 16:7-9) 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;

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

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

Old Heart — New Heart

The rationalization for keeping the law is so that one does not sin; sin being defined by the advocates of the law as the result of transgressing the law.

There are several things wrong with this belief.

Not all transgressions of the law resulted in a charge of sin. Jesus pointed out examples, and He is the ultimate authority on the subject. When it came to the Sabbath, He worked, and declared good works lawful; not “lawless” and thus not a sin, even though the Sabbath law was transgressed by anyone who did “any” work.

By working on the Sabbath; transgressing the Sabbath commandment “as is” those who insist the law be kept, especially the Sabbath, exposed themselves, unwittingly, that they held the law in higher esteem than they do God. They made the law; even the Sabbath, as greater than God; another god besides (along side of) God.

Adventists, for example, go so far as to assign the attributes of God to that law, claiming it to be “moral” as well as “eternal,” “unchanging,” and most egregious of all, “a transcript of God’s character.”

To “sin” against the law is to sin against God. To obey the law is to obey God, where once again, equivocation between God and the law is established. They become nearly indistinguishable.

Another flaw of this argument has to do with how God judges, and He does not judge according to the law and whether someone keeps it or not. God judges “righteous” judgment, according to the heart. God knows that those with the “deceitful and desperately wicked hearts; those who have hearts of stone and evil hearts of unbelief, will act accordingly, right down to even their thoughts and imaginations, reflecting the evil that resides within. They will transgress the law as a result, leading to their just condemnation spelled out in the law. The law provides the last nail in the evil person’s coffin. At issue here is how evil minded people think, where they are influenced by a deceptive “heart.” They shift the problem from themselves regarding what they are by nature, to sin being just a problem of behavior and behavior modification so that, if you don’t transgress the law, your problem is solved without ever addressing the heart that is sinful, regardless, and condemned, regardless. For a person with an evil heart only produces evil works in the sight of God. An evil person is incapable of doing anything truly good, seeing as the motive behind anything and everything they do is an evil heart that seeks its own advantage in everything they do.

The law condemns sin in all of its forms and manifestations. If you have an evil heart, you are evil. You are sin, personified. Keeping the law does not alter an evil heart. Keeping the law while having an evil heart is a futile endeavor. You will transgress in ways you cannot imagine, being deceived by your own wicked, evil heart.

People with wicked, evil hearts believe “wholeheartedly” that simply keeping the law solves their sin problem, while at the same time being in total denial over the other side of this coin, that is where people with a good heart; the “new heart” God provides to those who believe the Gospel, placing all their faith and hope in God for their salvation; now can only produce good fruits in the sight of God, due to the influence of that good heart where one’s motive is not about the self and self, but with God and pleasing Him; not disappointing the God who saved them from their sins.

Their sins are not remembered; there being no remembrance of sins in the New Covenant and those who are a part of it.

Those with the evil hearts of unbelief are quick to point out that Christians do sin, still trying to judge sin and others according to the law that true Christians are dead to, not under, freed from and redeemed from.

Christians will occasionally succumb to the pulls of the flesh while still in the flesh, the difference being, again, the heart; the same heart whereby God judges. Their sins; missing the mark when it comes to the glory of God, are the result of spiritual immaturity; a failure to follow through all the time with the fruits of the Spirit; a failure to do good. Contrast this with those who have evil hearts where they can do no good, being evil. All they can do is either do evil, or refrain from doing evil, which is not doing good.

Those with the deceitful and wicked hearts are incapable of any spiritual discernment. As such, all that is left to them is based in the physical and a physical religion they embrace in the hope of acquiring eternal life on their own terms. Keep the law; don’t sin, and God owes you – is obligated to save you because you don’t sin, for the most part, and when you do, you simply seek forgiveness, then it’s back to business as usual, until the next time you sin while keeping 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

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

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

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