Genesis 26:5 - Did Abraham Keep the Law?

One of the hardest things to recognize is when we're no longer trying to understand what a verse says, but are trying to make it say what we need it to say. Genesis 26:5 is a good example.

---

As I was writing the "The Sabbatarian Inner Conflict" article, I had a whole section on Genesis 26:5 written up. I figured that made the article too long, so it had to go. But I liked the topic, so it had to stay. My solution was to put it into its own post. This one.

Let's see that verse:

(GEN. 26:5) because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.

The general claim among Sabbatarians goes like this:
"If Abraham kept the commandments, statutes, and laws, as it says in Genesis 26:5, then the Old Covenant law predated Israel. And if the law predated Israel, then it applies to everyone, not just Israel." You can see this claim in multiple different official Armstrongist church publications.

But is that so? Is that the right conclusion or just the desired conclusion? At least it's worth investigating.

We have a whole post that addresses this very idea in a broader way (see "Common Legalist Arguments - Part V"). But today's post is focused on Abraham.

TROUBLES

If we read Genesis 26:5 as being about the whole law, now we have a conflict with Moses:

(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.

Also, we have a conflict with Paul:

(GAL. 3: 16-17a) 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later...

(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.

Was Moses misinformed? Were these things given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but Moses overstated his case? No, Moses knew and accurately spoke. He is the one who recorded the history of Abraham.

Maybe Moses only meant the Covenant was not made with Abraham, meaning the Covenant only, apart from the law? No. That isn't how covenants work. We cannot separate a covenant from its terms. The covenant is its terms, and the terms are the covenant. The Old Covenant was an agreement between parties - in this case God and Israel - and it included the laws, the promises, and the blessings and curses. So, we cannot separate the Covenant from the law.
And Paul said 'the law' did not exist until Moses.

Paul spoke about two covenants - the covenant made with Abraham and the covenant made with Israel. He explained how the covenant law given to Israel, that was 430 years after Abraham, cannot annul the unconditional promise given to Abraham. (For those with detail-oriented minds, you can glean quite a bit from this one small section from Paul; things I don't want to get into here.)

Did Paul not read Genesis 26:5? We can be confident he read it. Could Paul not see these hints where the law is hidden in the time before Moses? Paul knew the Torah, he knew the history, and yet he said what he said. The difference is, Paul did not need to build a back story in order to justify his doctrines.

Maybe Paul only meant Abraham had the moral law while the ceremonial and national laws were added later? No. That's not how either covenant worked. The only "law" explicitly given to Abraham was circumcision (GEN. 17:9-14). Besides, the threefold moral/ceremonial/national division of law was not something people recognized at that time. That came much later, well after Paul's time. If the law wasn't divided this way in Paul's time, then he couldn't have had that in mind.

I know someone will complain to me, "Are you telling me Abraham didn't know about 'you shall not steal, murder, or dishonor your parents'??" I believe he did! I absolutely believe Abraham had an upstanding moral character and concern for righteousness, and I believe it might even be fair to think of it as the 'spirit of the law'. But he did not have the written law.
He didn't get the Torah law from his culture, but he could have gotten certain moral codes and cultural expectations. Abraham is believed to have lived before Hammurabi, but Hammurabi's Code arose from a culture that had already produced several previous legal codes (e.g., Code of Urukagina and Code of Ur-Nammu). Many points from these codes are also in the Old Covenant law. It doesn't matter precisely which of those legal codes Abraham might have known. (And, no, I am not saying the Torah came from these codes. Just that morality is going to follow a certain pattern.) My point is that he came from a culture that was very interested in social order. And he could have picked up those basic things from his culture, like not not stealing and not murdering. I don't accept that one needs the written law to achieve this (ROM. 2:14).

This complaint comes from the false understanding that righteousness and sin come from the law. We have reviewed in the past many times how righteousness and sin do not need come from the law (for more, see "The Road to Sabbatarianism - Part III").

Do you see what's happening here? I am purposefully grasping at things in hopes of finding a way - making a way - to explain the situation in a manner that is favorable to the Sabbath. But is that what I should be doing? Is forcing things to fit a predetermined conclusion the right way to find the truth?

We are blocked in. Both Moses and Paul said what they meant to say.
Perhaps Moses and Paul just needed a proper education from Herbert Armstrong.

Once again, the only reason we are reviewing this verse in the first place is because of the claim that string of words in Genesis 26:5 is said to indicate Abraham had the whole law. We can't dig ourselves into the "entire law" hole then get ourselves out again by switching to "only some of the law" or "spirit of the law".

TO GET WHAT WE WANT

We must be very cautious here or we run into circular reasoning. How so?
     How do you know Abraham kept the law?
     Because the law is eternal.
     But how do you know the law is eternal?
     Because Abraham kept it.
That is circular reasoning. That Abraham kept the law cannot be the conclusion and the evidence for the conclusion.

Sabbatarianism tends to start at the conclusion then works to evidence it out. In Armstrongism, we would create an explanation that sounded reasonable, then simply stop there. We would never test it out to see if the explanation works, or to see what other chaos that explanation causes elsewhere. Why would we when we've have what we wanted? In this case, if we understand Genesis 26:5 as saying, "Abraham kept the Old Covenant law," because that reading looks like it supports a Sabbath-for-all, then we have what we want. There we would stop. We would never ask what that does to Deuteronomy 5 or Galatians 3. We should have! Abraham keeping the law is conflicting with Moses and Paul (and the letter of the law, and the nature of covenants, and history, and Jewish tradition, and...). We cannot ignore that and hope it simply goes away. We cannot cover it up by quickly dodging to some other topic, or hurling accusations. (For another example, see "We Were Right By Default".)

Since most Sabbatarians believe there is only one set of laws, eternal and perfect and unchanging, the natural inclination is to conclude this particular string of words in Genesis 26:5 always refer to the Old Covenant law. And perhaps we might turn to a verse like Deuteronomy 30:10 for support.
One big problem I have with this is the immediate back away from that belief. How so?
As Sabbatarians say the law is eternal and perfect, they also say they do not need what is called "the law of Moses," which were any laws given through Moses other than the Ten Commandments (except certain ones, like tithing and meats and holy days). Adventists in particular are known for saying, "The law (the Ten Commandments)." So, is it all the law, or some of the law, or the Ten Commandments only? Is it eternal and perfect and unchanging, or "law buffet" if we skip out on circumcision?
So, two opposite and incompatible things are believed at the same time. They use Genesis 26:5 to get the whole law, only to tell you later on that they never wanted the whole law to begin with.

IN A WORD

Assuming that the words in Genesis 26:5 always refer to the Mosaic law gets one into trouble in other places as well.

For example, it is normal for Sabbatarians to interpret the English word 'commandments' as always referring to the Ten Commandments.
...except in verses that are harmful to the cause, like EPH. 2:15 or HEB. 7:18. 

(EPH. 2:15) having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances

(HEB 7:18) For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness

It appears to get us what we want in John 14:15, but it gets the Ten Commandments annulled and abolished in other places. We went over this in "The Sabbath Rest of John 14". 

Is it not obvious this assumption leads to a double standard? Oh how we love to quote, "if you love Me, keep My commandments.". That is one of the most popular proof-texts in all of Sabbatarianism! But now we must deny and obfuscate when a verse says, "there is an annulling of the former commandment." They both say "commandment". We cannot completely rely on it in one place and strongly deny it in another. If you're going to have a standard, then stick to it. This same thing affects Genesis 26:5. It is only being relied on because it says "commandments".
There is a term for this particular kind of double standard: Special Pleading.

There is no way to prove these words in Genesis 26:5 always refer to the same things - that "commandments" always refers to the same commandments and "statutes" always refers to the same statutes, etc - while there is quite a bit of reason to believe they do not. I won't go over all of the reasons here beyond Paul and Moses. We have other articles for that. My advice is to take each verse individually and prove what 'commandments' means there within that verse and its immediate context. 

Therefore, I believe the cleanest path forward is to understand the string of words in Genesis 26:5 differently. We must rethink the notion that the only thing God could have been referring to when He said, "My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws," is the exact same set of things he commanded to Israel. I propose something far more individualized.

SECOND LOOK

Let's take a quick look at one way we might understand Genesis 26:5 from a different perspective. 

When this list of words is strung together like we see in here, layered one after another, this is a way for God to say, "Abraham obeyed everything I required of him." It's individualized. It's idiomatic. It's almost poetry, somewhat like the comment, "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will," (ACT. 13:22). It isn't about Abraham doing every little thing perfectly, because, just like King David, he did not. And it isn't about God wanting everyone everywhere to do the same things. But what God asked of Abraham, he did. The question then becomes, what did God really want from Abraham?

Obviously, a large part of it was faith:

(GEN. 15:6) And he [Abram] believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

You can also read this in Romans 4:1-3, and Galatians 3:5-6, and James 2:21-24. Abraham believed God and his faith is what was counted as righteousness. Faith might be called "trust" or perhaps "believing loyalty". Not the acts, not some law, but belief in and loyalty to God was Abraham's righteousness.

That said, it isn't so simple as faith alone. His belief led him to act. 

Abraham is praised for the combination of belief resulting in action. Which actions? Law? Wearing Tzitzit? No. Various acts are mentioned, including dedication to the true God, leaving his home, journeying to Haran, being circumcised, believing he would be given a son, and ultimately offering up that son.
What is missing from that list? The written law. How could it be referring to the written law which Paul said was 430 years later and which Moses said was not given to the Patriarchs?

One might believe we can piece the law together from clues, like pointing out that Abraham tithed. Let's take a sidebar look at that one briefly.

TITHE LAW

Yes, he gave 1/10th of war spoils to Melchizedek (GEN. 14:20). But then Abraham gave the rest of it away because he went into the battle already determined not to keep so much as a shoelace so the King of Sodom could not hold it over his head later on. So:

• Those weren't things he intended to keep to begin with,
• War spoils are not listed in the law among the tithable items,
• Melchizedek was not a Levite nor an Aaronic Priest, and thus was not eligible to receive tithes under the law.

This is not a tithe in keeping with the written law. Hebrews 7:4-10 even inverts this tithe so that the Levites are the ones paying it, not to Aaron but to someone else entirely.

Armstrongism, as a branch of Adventism, teaches that tithing is required, and therefore teaches a tithe can come from money and a tithe can be received by just about anyone. But that isn't what the law says. (For more, see "Tithing - You're Doing It Wrong".)
Abraham's tithe was a tenth, yes, but not as defined under the Old Covenant law.

Someone will ask, "If Abraham wasn't keeping the law, then why did he tithe?" The law isn't the only place we find a tithe. We can dig one up in history as well.

Remember how I mentioned Abraham's culture? There were ancient Sumerian and Akkadian words for tenth and temple tithe (also Ugaritic, which would be after Abraham but before Moses). To put that simply, the practice of giving a tenth as a religious tribute or as a tax already existed in the cultures of Abraham's time and place. The idea was hardly unique to Israel. It did not have to come from Israel's law. This helps to explain why Abraham gave a tenth, yet not in a way that was strictly in line with the Mosaic Law.
If you are interested in some references, see:

• University of Pennsylvania's Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary. Look for the word "Zagu [tithe]".
• A. Leo Oppenheim, “A Fiscal Practice of the Ancient Near East,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 6, no. 2 (1947), pp. 116–120.
• A. Martirossian, “Notes concerning the Economic Activities of the Babylonian Temple in the First Millennium B.C.”

I could go on to point out that tithing is not a moral law but qualifies as a ceremonial law, in what Sabbatarians call "the Law of Moses"; same as the animal sacrifice we see Abraham doing. Ceremonial laws are said to no longer be in force. Therefore, according to their own teachings, Sabbatarians appeal to laws they themselves should not keep. Then why appeal to them?
I remind you, the purpose behind insisting Abraham kept the Old Covenant law is to support the claim, "If the law was before Moses then it is binding on everyone, and everyone should go to church on Saturday". But if the ceremonial law predates Moses, well now you've got a problem. Either everyone must observe the whole ceremonial law, or we have to ditch "before Moses, therefore binding on everyone" claim. (For more, see "Common Legalist Arguments - Part V".)

What happens after Jesus only factors in when we are talking about laws we don't want to keep. A double standard that was not thought through because as soon as we got what we wanted, we stopped.

LEGAL BRIEF

I want to take a sidestep here and point out that I am not claiming, "Abraham did not keep the law because the Bible doesn't say he kept the law." That would be an argument from silence. However, the flip side of that is the baseless assertion. We must avoid both ditches. We do not need the Bible to absolutely spell everything out for us bluntly, but we certainly do need to build a good case to believe a thing. Proof-texting one verse and front-loading it with assumptions is not building a case. We need compelling reasons why Abraham could have known about and kept the whole Mosaic law as written. I don't see that anywhere.

The Sabbatarian claim seems to be built on these things:

• We need it to be true - I honestly don't put any stock in this.
• The words commandments, statutes, and laws always mean the same things - No. We went over that.
• The tithe - I disagree. We go over this here and elsewhere. (For more, see "Tithing - You're Doing It Wrong".)
• The Sabbath was from creation - I disagree. We go over this elsewhere. Either way, this only deals with the Sabbath, not everything in bullet #2. (For more, see "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2")
• Some ancillary items like animal sacrifice and Noah's clean animals - I disagree. We go over this elsewhere. (For more, see "Common Legalist Arguments - Part V" and "Clean/Unclean for Noah".) But one thing we can say here is, if you stand on the claim that, "it predated Moses, therefore it's binding on all mankind," then you better find a seller of turtledoves. You're going to need them.

In short, Sabbatarianism has not built any compelling case that Abraham had the Torah to begin with. And half the case they do make, they walk back later on because of laws they don't want.

CONCLUSION

We might have gone into Genesis 26:5 hoping to get law before Sinai and a universal Sabbath, but if we got our wish then we would come out with animal sacrifices. We've run into problems with Moses, Paul, circular logic, special pleading with the word 'commandment', and backing away from claims we relied on earlier. In the end, there is no way to demonstrate that Abraham kept the Old Covenant law as written; a law that Moses said was not given to the Patriarchs, and that Paul said came centuries after Abraham. As for the claim that Abraham had the entire written law centuries before certain points in that law were even possible (like Passover), well, you got some 'splainin' to do!

My proposed solution has two parts:

1) The words, "My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws," should be understood idiomatically. Taking them literally causes issues with Moses and Paul (and history, and Jewish tradition, and...). 

2) They should be taken in an individualized way. Even though God no doubt wants certain things from us all, God can ask different things of different people depending on what God was working towards at the time. All that God asked of Abraham, he did.

And in the end, what the Bible unambiguously says is that Abraham's righteousness was imputed because of his faith, and his faith led to certain actions. The righteousness was from the faith, not the actions. The actions were the result. What it does not say is that those actions were specifically from the law.

Hopefully you saw how this struggle to make the words come to a certain predetermined conclusion causes all sorts of conflict in other areas. I encourage everyone to think all of their claims through to the very end and put the things we agree with to the same scrutiny as we do the things we disagree with.

Of all that I just said today, I ask you to keep this in mind: Abraham is counted as righteous for his believing loyalty to God, but he did not stop there; that belief bore fruit in acts of faith. That is the pattern Scripture actually gives us. And that is basically what God desires of us all. 

My usual hidden theme is "Jesus is sufficient." It should be obvious how that is found in this post.

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 VI
The Law Is Written On Our Hearts - Part I
Are The Ten Commandments Removed?
The Sabbath Rest of John 14
Review - Written By The Finger of God
Are the Ten Commandments Removed?

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

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

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

Keeping the Sabbath Holy?

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

God declared that all the works of the Hebrew’s hands were only evil before Him.

(Jeremiah 32:30) For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD.

They kept their hands from polluting the Sabbath by refraining from doing “any” work on the Sabbath, keeping the Sabbath “holy.”

Jesus worked on the Sabbath. His works did not pollute the Sabbath or compromise the holiness of that day because His works were not evil, like the works of the Jews then and there. He elaborated on this theme by informing them that good works are lawful on the Sabbath, as contrasted to evil works which violated and polluted the holiness of the day.

But they, being evil by nature, rejected His declaration, looking solely to the letter of the law; the letter that Paul wrote, “kills” understanding only that the Sabbath commandment stated “no one” was to do “any” work whatsoever. They ‘conveniently’ overlooked how they themselves were doing some works on the Sabbath that were validated by the Sanhedrin such as turning one’s livestock out to pasture, and even rescuing an animal from a pit or ditch on the Sabbath so that the animal did not suffer needlessly. But, they saw healing a suffering person on the Sabbath in a different light… that a person could be allowed to suffer a few more hours before being miraculously healed…

Today’s ‘wanna-be’ Sabbath keepers insist what Jesus did on the Sabbath was not really “work” but was additional restrictions placed upon the Sabbath by the same Pharisees who relaxed the requirements of the Sabbath mentioned here, never explaining how you add further restrictions on the Sabbath law that already forbade “any” work at all.

The lesson of the Sabbath as drawn out by Jesus goes right over the collective heads of those He spoke to, and those who read about it today who believe they need to keep the Sabbath of the Old Testament dispensation.

It is only evil works that pollute and violate the holiness of the Sabbath, not good works, which can only be performed by those who are no longer evil, based on the heart; people in whom God has given the gift of the Holy Spirit, changing the nature of a person so that the are now a “new creature” (creation) in Christ, no longer subject to that law that dealt with those who had evil hearts of unbelief; the “deceptive and desperately wicked hearts” (Jeremiah 17:9). “Hearts of stone” (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26).

God does not condemn those to whom He has given this new heart / Spirit. Their works are no longer evil. Evil works are the product (produce) of an evil heart; good trees produce good works ONLY.

Evil people have that evil heart of unbelief; it is a heart, mind, and soul that cannot comprehend spiritual issues, and so, this whole concept is rejected out of hand; a hand that can only do evil.

God reveals Himself to those He chooses, so that it is all to His glory, and not to any evil man who would then conclude he glorifies himself through his own realization.

God must grant such people “repentance” even as He granted repentance unto the Gentiles (Acts 11:18).

Until then, people remain under condemnation; not due to the law, but due to having an evil heart of unbelief (John 16:7-9)

God judges according to the heart, and an evil heart remains condemned by God.

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

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

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

God's Elegant Solution

God solved the sin problem in a most elegant fashion.

He made a covenant with the Hebrews that in many cases demanded the death of sinners, where their blood was to be spilled out; a blood covenant, where both the book of the law as well as the participants of that covenant were sprinkled with the blood of that covenant, and interestingly, the altar where sacrifices for sin were performed.

The sacrifices delayed the inevitable. They covered the sins of the people, but could not remove their sins. Only their own deaths could do that; their own spilled out blood, from which all understood there could be no chance of recovery. The life is in the blood. Spill it out upon the ground and there is no way for it to be collected up and placed back in a body. The sentence was an unmistakable way of insuring a convicted person could not survive the death penalty.

Your escape from this death of no return was also permitted by this law, where another could stand in for you; take your punishment in your place. The problem with this was that all have sinned, and all have their own death penalty looming over them. There was no way for them to pay their own debt, let alone another's, for sin.

Enter now God Incarnate; a sinless being. The perfect sacrifice for sin; without spot or defect; the “Lamb of God” who prepared for this event before the world was, “sacrificed” from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:8)

He took the place of every being who ever lived, and paid their sin-debt in their place.

(Hebrews 9:26) For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

By paying this sin-debt for all mankind, all mankind is legally viewed in the eyes of God as now dead to sin, freed from sin, redeemed from sin. Sin has no claim on anyone covered by Christ’s sacrifice, where the prophet John the Baptist pointed out His sacrifice would take away the sin of the world. And it was all legal and proper.

There are those who do not believe this; do not fully understand or believe in the efficacy of His sacrifice and insist mankind is still subject to the penalty for sins of commission or omission, despite the weight of Scripture revealing this.

This brings up an entirely different category of sin, not addressed or covered by Christ’s sacrifice: the sin of rejecting His sacrifice. The sin of unbelief, born of an evil heart of unbelief.
It is however a sin that Christ Jesus can and will forgive, predicated on one’s repentance and acceptance of the Gospel where He can now offer eternal life to whomever He so chooses to give it to, seeing as He has freed all mankind from the penalty of death due to their sins; the works and fruits of their “hands”, as is oft stated.

Those who resist the Gospel also resist and deny His sacrifice for sin. One need not be an atheist or of another religion. Among those who claim they worship Christ, they are typically those who embrace the law, and turn from the Gospel to the law that demanded death for sin still in force and enforceable. They insist you can and will be charged with sin and come under the death penalty again, despite Christ’s sacrifice for sin. They merely repackage and re-frame their claims through rationalizations and front-loading the biblical evidence with the narrative they hope to achieve.

“Being under Grace is no excuse or license to sin,” where 'sin' is defined narrowly as any transgression of the law. This flips the purpose and function of the law. It is often supported by citing the poorly translated verse in 1John 3:4, specifically from the KJV translation originally found in the Bishops Bible, and excluding the first half of the verse while ignoring the underlying Greek found in the second half of the verse.

Sin ALSO transgresses the law, it says, resulting in a charge of sin, further resulting in the invocation of the death penalty; the condemnation of the law. That was the function and purpose of the law, to condemn those who sinned. And all have sinned.

By now embracing the law and insisting the law still results in condemnation, what happened to Jesus’ sacrifice for sin?

It is vacated. It is rendered incomplete, circumventable. Ignored.

Wouldn’t this be something the devil would want you to believe; that you can still be charged with sin and suffer the death penalty for it?

The unspoken claim of those who insist we keep the law, is the tacit accusation that you, being under Grace and not the law and the condemnation that comes with the law, desire only to be able now to sate the evil desires of your heart without concern or the threat of punishment. They conveniently overlook that the core of the Gospel is that God gives the believer a new heart from God, ie. His Holy Spirit, who will lead you away from such desires of an evil heart, as you will no longer have an evil heart with evil desires.

This whole argument is based on unrighteous judgment; ignoring the righteous judgment of God who judges according to the heart and not according to appearance. This is a truth of Scripture and a truth of God, declared by God, and ignored by those who do not love of truth, or Truth Incarnate.
They are the ones placed under what Paul described in II Thessalonians 2:10-12 as a "strong delusion" that condemns them due to their sin of unbelief, from an evil heart of unbelief, who reject the Gospel of salvation through Him, which is a rejection of Him, claiming that God will refuse to forgive despite His sacrifice for sin that was given so man could be forgiven.

Such people who reject the Gospel will produce their own gospels that are never “good news”. Instead of freedom they offer bondage dressed up; disguised as the law of Liberty and the Spirit; a repackaging of the Old covenant at the expense of the New, that God said was not to be like the Old. Their "good news" is that nothing has changed, and the Old covenant continues, therefore you need to "do the work" of fear and qualifying and sending them money.

But the Gospel provides no profit for false prophets. They seek gain and laud and recognition for themselves at the expense of others; their evil ego demands it. They use the fear of punishment and death, found in the law, to motivate people to support them through their false gospels.

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

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

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

How God Judges Mankind

In Scripture, the unbelieving are those who do not believe God. They believe God exists, but they do not believe what God says, what God reveals about Himself, and how He operates.

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

How many Hebrews and others over the course of millennia do you suppose have read that?

Millions? Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions?

And yet, the statement has fallen on deaf ears.

Many even today conclude that God is going to judge mankind according to the law; and with Adventists, specifically the Decalogue and especially Sabbath. According to them and other Sabbatarian groups, you will be judged and condemned over the Sabbath; not keeping the Sabbath. This has an interesting twist when you consider that it was in the context of the Sabbath and Jesus working on the Sabbath that He touched on this same issue:

(John 7:21-24) Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

What those unfamiliar with the Jewish religion and custom of the time do not understand was that a male Hebrew was not considered “whole” until he underwent circumcision. Here, a comparison is made with being healed; returned to a condition of being “whole.” But the overall thrust of the statement made by Jesus is that they were judging Him according to appearance in regards to the Sabbath, with many of them heaping condemnation upon Him as a result, and again, a resistance to switch gears and learn to judge righteous judgment and no longer according to appearance.

Let’s establish a couple things here.
The Jews watched as Jesus miraculously healed people on the Sabbath. Despite such miracles, they concluded He had sinned because He transgressed the Sabbath commandment by working. The nature of the work was irrelevant in their hard-hearted minds and souls. It was an open and shut case for those who judged according to appearance. He worked on the Sabbath; He sinned. I submit to you that it was impossible for them to judge otherwise, having the “deceptive and desperately wicked heart” that heart being an unregenerate heart that has no sense of love and compassion on the scale of the Spirit.

If you were truly judging according to the heart, the works would reflect the heart; not the law. So in order for someone today to judge according to appearance, they must feign the appearance of judging according to the heart, so that, through further manipulation of the law, one’s heart will be made to appear evil with an evil intent to intentionally transgress the law…

It is circular reasoning at it’s apex, and we all see it here in these forums on a near-daily basis. You first judge and conclude another as evil, using the law again as the standard of judging the heart, THEN proceed to judge the evil heart that was determined to be evil to begin with, so that their works are in turn evil.

The Pharisees did exactly that. They declared Jesus performed miracles through the power of the devil so that the forced conclusion is that anything done by anyone under the control of the devil is an evil work born of an evil hearted person.

Jesus’ miracles concluded with two that defied this logic, especially the resurrection of Lazarus. The devil has no power to raise the dead. It could also be said to be beyond the power of the devil to cause a man born blind to see.

The bottom line issue here is that Jesus worked on the Sabbath, and true to His Word and statement, His works were good, and not evil; works of compassion and love for those suffering, all counted as nothing by the hard-hearted Pharisees; the administrators of the law, who hated Him, passionately, and wanted Him dead.

I remind the reader at this juncture that Jesus told His followers that they too would be the recipients of persecution, even as He was, and it is an interesting irony that the persecution levied against Christians today is based on the same thing when it comes to Adventists… the law and Sabbath.

Ask an Adventist if good works are lawful on the Sabbath, and should you get a “yes” answer from them, it will come with caveats, where they themselves determine what is an ‘acceptable’ good work and what is not, which again ignores the heart and what God judges mankind.

God is decidedly not going to judge anyone for working on the Sabbath; a work of the old covenant law. All sins of the flesh have been forgiven; the payment being paid by God Himself.

There is however one sin left remaining, that is not a sin of the flesh. It is a sin of the mind, heart, and soul. It is a condemnation of an evil heart of unbelief. It is the condemnation of a deceitful and desperately wicked heart; a heart of stone.

Arguments over the law and Sabbath are but mere distractions to take everyone’s attention off of the heart and motive of heart, where it was the unbelieving Jews who condemned Jesus the Christ, using the law while ignoring the heart and motive of heart. Their hatred of Him was in relation to His flaunting the Sabbath law especially. He was showing the people that even their precious Sabbath could be violated without actual sin being the result. And still, they denied Him, all the result of their evil hearts of unbelief and faithlessness, where they cloaked their evil hearts with the law.

The unbelieving need another standard, and God provided a ready-made alternative for them to grasp hold of; the law that ultimately condemns them to death, due to their denial of the One who could grant them freedom from sin and that law’s condemnation, keeping their evil hearts and minds blinded from their ultimate fate.

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

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

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

Real Righteousness and Unrighteousness

Faithful-belief = Righteousness. Faithlessness-Unbelief = Unrighteousness

(Romans 4:3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

(Galatians 3:6) Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

(James 2:23) And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Faith and belief are synonymous. But in case you are in doubt –

(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.

What then of those deemed faithless? They have no righteousness. They have, if anything, the antithesis of righteousness, that being unrighteousness.

The Hebrews, who were given the law, were described as faithless, unbelieving, stiff-necked and rebellious — all of which hardly qualifies as being righteous.

(Hebrews 3:7-12) Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

(Hebrews 3:15-19) While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

When we tie this all together:

(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;

The law was not made for the righteous. That law does not apply to them. The law applies to the unrighteous, aka the lawless (sinful/evil) and disobedient.

Interesting then that those faithless who today embrace the law made for the unrighteous and disobedient, brag about being obedient… to the law and not to Christ Jesus.

Abraham listened to God, and did as God bid him.

The Hebrews were told through Moses what He would do, and they did not believe Him.

Today, we are told through the recorded documents of the Apostles, etc. what God wants of us, today; to place our faith, belief, trust, and hope in Him, to the exclusion of all else, and not in the law that applies to the faithless and unbelieving…

The new LAW of faith and the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus only condemns one sin; the same sin that set the stage for all mankind down through the ages: The sin of unbelief / faithlessness. For Adam and Even did not believe God, and so they partook of that tree of God’s whose fruit was death; typology for the law “of God” whose fruit; end result, is the same.

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

Acts 17:11

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

The 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 we were right by default. 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.
No one seems to notice that we argued strongly against man-made traditions, only to make a man-made tradition the very centerpiece of our identity (I refer to going to church on Saturday).
We literally argued two completely incompatible things at the same time. These three are not by any means the only examples I can give. We will see more as we go.

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 makes 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 (read "Genesis 26:5 - Did Abraham Keep the Law?").

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.
Sin is anything that is not in line with God's nature and you know you are out of line? (Let that humble you.) There's good news. 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 lately 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. We used terms like "greasy grace." We were told Jesus would never change "His Father's laws" (except the ones we changed). 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 and standards and methodology. 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. If you are going to set a standard than follow the standard.
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, rewrite what's left so it is not only for Israel anymore, completely change the priesthood, all new promises, 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. They are the very foundation of the Old Covenant. The Ten were written for Israel alone. So, those details are conveniently edited out of the perfect and unchanging law. 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! If the ceremonial and national laws were added for Israel, that's a change! If they were later removed for Christians, 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.
The very 'straw that broke the camel's back' that finally caused me to leave Armstrongism is when a friend of mine said to me, "Mr. Armstrong changed the law out of necessity." My friend did not think through what he was saying in the moment.

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 we 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 will continue on while 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

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