Evil Uses the Sabbath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Good Works — Evil Works

Adventists claim and believe that they would sin if they worked on the Sabbath, and claim that anyone who works on the Sabbath sins.

Jesus said good works are lawful on the Sabbath, not sin, and He contrasted good works with evil works.

So to reiterate, Adventists admit that were they to work on the Sabbath they would sin. So they refrain from working on the Sabbath so as to not sin. They admit their works are sin; sinful works, on the Sabbath.

Sin, from the Greek “hamartia” – ‘missing the mark’ in relation to the glory of God, ALSO is the Greek, “anomia” which is translated into three different English words: lawlessness, evil, and iniquity. This is what 1John 3:4 relates, so that sin; missing the mark, is also lawlessness, evil, and sin.

Adventism further defines “lawlessness” so that it is only in the context of the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, to the exclusion of any other lawlessness, iniquity, or sin. To them, "the law" is the Ten Commandments.

It also would have to mean that if a Greek speaking person in Greece were to use “anomia” it would be lawlessness also in relation to the Decalogue of the Hebrews, which is quite a stretch way beyond credibility. They had their own laws and would have had no interest or even knowledge of the laws of other countries, let along the law of Israel and the Hebrews.

Getting back to what God Incarnate said publicly, certain things can be done on the Sabbath without lawlessness. Good works were lawful on the Sabbath. He contrasted lawful works with lawlessness, evil, and iniquitous works. But those things are never lawful to do. If you worked on the Sabbath and God charged you with sin, it would be because the works themselves were evil, lawless and iniquitous, as contrasted to good, lawful works.

But Adventism insists that some otherwise good works, if performed on the Sabbath, result in those same works becoming lawless, sinful, and iniquitous.

(Isaiah 5:20) Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Now for a question that shouldn’t be difficult to answer: who would call good works evil, and evil works good? A good person, or an evil person?

An evil person, who will in turn attempt to define evil and good works in relation to the Sabbath, instead of the merits of the works themselves and those performing the works based upon their motive of heart for doing so.

Good Works 

The evil person’s perception is based on appearance. They “see” someone working on the Sabbath works that they themselves have not concluded to be exempt from the prohibition against working on the Sabbath. Their perception is that it is the law that makes the determination, and not them, when in fact it is really them and their lawless use and abuse of the law.

If you are not an Adventist, then you are the target of charges of sins against the “law of God” which they wield unlawfully in order to accuse and persecute those God has declared righteous, and whose works now, wrought in the Spirit, are seen by God who judges according to the heart and not the law, as good works, ONLY — Christians who are now “good trees” producing ONLY good fruits to the glory and honor of God.

When Jesus performed miracles, there were times the people who witnessed them gave glory to God for the miracles they witnessed. But the Pharisees who taught the law, only, did not celebrate and give glory to God. They attributed the miracles to the devil and the works of the devil, with Jesus being a spawn of the devil. Good works, even miraculous works, which He performed intentionally on the Sabbath, exposed their evil hearts for all to see when they declared good works evil, sinful, lawless and iniquitous.

A good heart, provided by God Himself, results in good works done to the glory of the God who gives us the good heart; aka His Holy Spirit that converts a person into a new creation, led now by the Spirit, and no longer the flesh, where those led by their stony, carnal, evil heart, could only produce evil works or fruits.

And this, according to Adventism, is twisting Scripture, which is much easier to do than trying to refute good works themselves, which are the fruits of the Holy Spirit in those led by the Holy Spirit. Good words are accused in an attempt to defend how an otherwise good work one day is a sin if performed between the hours between sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

Good works are always good works. Evil works are always evil works. Good hearted people with the new heart from God produce only good works. Evil hearted people who lack God’s Holy Spirit produce only evil works. It was the evil-hearted Hebrews with a deceitful heart of stone, an evil heart of unbelief, who were given the law with the Sabbath commandment where they were to refrain from their evil works of the flesh, born of an evil heart.

Wherever you read "Adventist" feel free to plug in your flavor of Sabbatarianism

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

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

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

Mormon Contradiction: Is The Nature Of God Changeable Or Unchangeable?

The Book of Mormon contains a number of passages describing God as having an unchangeable nature:

"For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18)

"Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved." (Alma 41:8)

These passages communicate themes of the immutability of God. These are words that could come from the mouth of anyone who professes faith in Him. Taken by themselves, these statements may even hoodwink one into thinking that Mormonism is thoroughly consistent with traditional Christianity.

"For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?" (Mormon 9:9)

This text is of interest here, especially considering how Joseph Smith took the words describing Christ in Hebrews 13:8 and applied them to God the Father. The point is not that such a description of Him is incorrect, but the verbatim words from the biblical text have been inserted into the Book of Mormon. This is arguably an instance of plagiarism.

Official Mormon doctrine, on the other hand, affirms that God is increasing in knowledge. Consider this excerpt from the Journal of Discourses, volume 6:

"The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coequal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth....There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal with our Father in heaven."

If God can grow in terms of knowledge, then how can He be said to be unchangeable? If God is as man once was and man can become what God is, then He cannot have that trait applied to Him. Smith's teaching on this issue is muddled and contradictory.

If God is able to increase in knowledge, then it follows that He can make mistakes. His judgments are liable to error. The Mormon conception of god is not a god in any meaningful sense of the term. The god of Mormonism has no power to save lost souls.

 

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

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

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

Physical vs Spiritual

Deceptions rarely stand alone in a religious environment. A deception usually breeds more deceptions in order to build a structure of interwoven deceptions that appear to all be supporting one another as truths.

One of the tell-tale indicators is how the language is used, with deceptions often being referred to as “obviously true” despite a lack of biblical evidence to support them.

The concept of “moral” law is a good example. Nowhere in Scripture does it state that any law constitutes being “moral” law, let alone the entire Decalogue. Yet the concept is accepted as true despite this, and the requirement stated in Scripture is to prove all things, not to accept all things should they appear to be “obviously” or “apparently” true.”

(Proverbs 3:5) Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Ask those who believe in “moral” law to define it. And ask how it contrasts to “ceremonial” law and how that is defined. It’s like watching a deer illuminated in the headlights, because the organization they belong to that proffers the concept has not defined the terms outside of circular reasoning. Most members are reluctant to answer, knowing that any answer they proffer may well not meet the criteria of any ‘official position’ of the organization. They are satisfied to simply parrot the belief/claim and leave it at that.

I proffer the concept that if there truly were such a thing as “moral” law, they would be laws where there is NEVER an excuse or justification for violating them. Murder is always wrong when properly defining ‘murder.’ Same with adultery, bearing false witness, and idolatry, to mention a few.

The concept of ‘moral’ law also raises another, associated issue. Are we discussing “moral” law in the context of a person being justified and declared morally upright because they keep or comply with “moral” law? And if so, then what of those who, say, never commit a murder, yet have a deep seated hatred of another, which Scripture identifies as the “spirit of murder”?

This would also be hard to embrace, given the statements by Paul that no one will be justified by the works of the law. What ties this all together is Jesus’ declaration about the Pharisees, who we could argue at least kept the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) yet Jesus referred to them as children of the devil and that they hated Him without a just cause.

(John 15:25) But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

No matter what Jesus did before them, in their sight, even raising the dead, was rejected in favor of the law. To them, the Messiah to come would be validating both them and the law they administered, so that, they charged even the followers of Christ Jesus for being ignorant of the law and thus cursed as a result.

(John 7:48-49) Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.

Dare I point it out? The law was more important than God Incarnate. And if you put something, anything, above and greater than God, then what is that ‘thing’ to you? It is the ‘god’ you serve and obey. It is your idol; whether made of stone, or the product of your imagination, or both.

(John 4:23-24) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Can we agree then that the Pharisees, whose focus was about the law and the works of the law that were physically oriented, were not worshiping God in spirit and in truth? They were rejecting truth by rejecting He who was the personification of Truth, and where spirit is about things non-corporeal; outside the realm of physical things and outside the realm of the heart, mind, and soul, where their focus was in relation to the physical body and outward appearances.

A believing Christian then sees themselves in relation to Christ in association with the heart, mind, and soul. False Christians, unbelievers, not being led by the Holy Spirit, will focus then on the physical things, such as the works of the law that have no bearing, no impact, on the heart, mind, and soul, even as was the case with those Pharisees.

The works of the law, and most everything in the law, pointed forwards to the Messiah to come; the Christ we know to be the Son of God, who is also God. It is a concept impossible for those focused on the physical to fully grasp, being a spiritual concept. For God exists in a spiritual realm and not a physical one where physically-, carnally-minded people try to understand the nature of God through a physical filter.

The physical sacrifices were typology of Him. Circumcision was typology of conversion, performed by the Holy Spirit, where under the law, a Jew was not complete unless and until he was circumcised. And in this spiritual reality, a “man” becomes complete in Christ through this spiritual “circumcision” “performed without hands”.

(Colossians 2:11) In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

As an aside, note carefully the wording and reference to sin, being sins of the flesh… not sins of the law. For the Gentiles were never required to come under the law, through a physical circumcision according to the law. This spiritual circumcision of the heart brings one into the New Covenant “law” of the Spirit and not the old covenant law of the physical letter… that kills.

Where Sabbatarianism, such as Armstrongism and Adventism, expose themselves as non-spiritual is their embrace of the old covenant Sabbath rest for the physical body that followed six days of physical work; ignoring the typology which they vaguely comprehend in regards to the sacrifices and circumcision. There is a spiritual “rest” found in Christ; a rest for the non-physical component of mankind associated with the heart, mind, and soul. The author of Hebrews points out this spiritual rest as a cessation of a former work, even as God ceased from the work of the physical universe where that typology meets its completion in the spiritual creation of a new man; a new creature / creation where all things have become new; different than the old.

(2 Corinthians 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

What were the “old things” that passed away? Everything associated with the old man, including his previous works of the flesh and sins of the flesh. A man in Christ enters into God’s rest. The rest God entered into millennia ago and still resides in is a permanent rest or “cessation” from the act of physical creation. This is a typology of our rest/cessation of our former works of the physical flesh, leading to eventual death, and in contrast our conversion/transformation places us within God’s rest, that is life ETERNAL. We now reside in this condition for the rest of eternity; having entered into God’s rest with Him that will never end. Death has been swallowed up by life.

This is all spiritually discerned, and as such, rejected by those still held by the flesh; still under the bonds and chains of sin. All they know and understand are physical things, along with physical rites and rituals that were typology of what was to come. People reject the concept due to having evil hearts of unbelief; held captive to sin by their very nature; their hearts, minds, and souls that have not undergone any spiritual awakening through conversion via the Holy Spirit, to the end that they end up actively resisting the Holy Spirit in favor of their own efforts under a physical law that condemns physical, carnal people led by the flesh.

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

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 I

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 first two of the three most common explanations and see whether they can withstand scrutiny.

---

In my last post, "Acts 15:21 - More Law Later?", we saw how the Sabbatarian explanation for Acts 15:21 is not the only way to understand the verse. I proposed the initial trouble in Acts 15 - the thing which disheartened the church, the thing which Paul and Barnabas sharply opposed, which Peter called a yoke, and which the Council ruled against - was exactly what was written: circumcision and the law.
The Pharisees felt that in order to join the Covenant, the Gentiles must join Israel, and to join Israel meant they must first be circumcised, and the result is that they must keep the law. Circumcision and law was the burden, and joining the nation of Israel was the root error that needed to be corrected.
We also saw how the "more law later" claim can be tested. We turn to Acts 21 where James contrasts the converts from Judaism, who were zealous for the law, with the converts from the Gentiles, who were taught no such thing. If even years later James was still saying the Gentiles would be taught no such thing, then there is no "more law later" for the Gentiles. The Sabbatarian reading of Acts 15:21 is flawed.

Sabbatarians disagree, of course. They assert the Apostles were fully in support of a small fraction of the law, while the Pharisees were not insisting on that but something else. The three main explanations for what the Pharisees were trying to bind on the Gentiles are either:
A) Circumcision only, or
B) Pharisaical traditions, or
C) All the law - particularly the ones which Sabbatarians don't personally think are necessary and which they call "the Law of Moses".

I disagreed with all three and said I will go over this more in another post. This is that post. (Which I have since changed into a two-parter because it was too long for one post.)

Keep in mind who we're talking about here: converts from the Pharisees. What were Pharisees like? Fastidious about the law. Tithing on every seed. Memorizing every word. Analyzing every nuance. Did they add traditions? Yes. But those traditions come from their attempt to more accurately understand and rigorously apply the law. (I agree with ABD author Bill's take on their approach to the law.)

A simple reading of the Council's decision clearly plays havoc with Sabbatarianism. Sabbatarianism needs the Old Covenant law. More specifically, it needs the Sabbath day. And to justify the Sabbath day, early Sabbatarians chose to emphasize the Ten Commandments. Yes, a commitment to the Sabbath came before an emphasis on the Ten Commandments. Sabbatarianism is now locked in to the Ten Commandments. Later Sabbatarians added additional laws, arguing amongst themselves over them. Sabbatarians reframe the debate to bring the Gentiles under certain laws while avoiding the appearance of siding with those Pharisees, claiming the debate was only about one of those three things listed above. But was it?
Let's take a look at each of those three things and see if they make sense.

CIRCUMCISION ONLY?

Let's start with circumcision because it's easiest. (That doesn't mean it's simple.) The Council was not only about circumcision alone.

Back in Armstrongism, many were taught the Council was only debating circumcision (for example, read "Reader Testimonials - Centurion", or I could pull up any number of official Armstrongist materials to demonstrate this, for example the Youth Bible Lessons series). Armstrongism at one time or the other taught all three of these incompatible explanations. But the claim is demonstrably false. If it were only about circumcision, then why was the argument said to be over circumcision and the law? Twice! (v.5 & v.24.)
I shouldn't have to say another word about this ...but I will.

Think about the position of Sabbatarianism - that only about 1/6 of the law is required. Now think of the attitude of the Pharisees. Do you think they would only care about circumcision, especially when 5/6 of the law supposedly just became unnecessary? I can't see how that is possible.

Think about the conclusion of the Council which they wrote in the letter to be sent out to all the church. If the initial trouble was about circumcision only, then what on earth does teaching the Gentiles to keep a short list of laws have to do with a debate over circumcision alone? "We had a debate which was only about circumcision, and decided against it. And because circumcision isn't needed, Gentiles should keep these four points of law that have nothing whatsoever to do with circumcision." That seems a rather odd way to solve the problem of circumcision.

It also fundamentally misses the concept of circumcision. Circumcision was never just about a snip. It was about joining a covenant people. It was the sign; the seal.
But which covenant? The Abrahamic! Not the Mosaic.
Circumcision was the required gateway to the Abrahamic Covenant (GEN. 17:10-14) and therefore the covenant people of Israel. It was joining Israel that placed one under Israel's Old Covenant obligations. Paul warns strongly that you could not snip in this context without getting the whole law (GAL. 5:3), along with its condemnations. (This doesn't mean every individual had to personally perform every law, for example some were only for the priesthood, but every person was beholden to the complete system, which included a priesthood.)
What I'm driving at is - the debate in Acts 15 could not be only about circumcision because by its very nature circumcision was not only about circumcision.

Everyone there understood the ramifications of circumcision. That is why the Pharisees insisted on circumcision in the first place - until then, that was how one joined the covenant people. "You want God? Then you join Israel." They misunderstood that the Gentiles were now covenant people in their own right, and that both Jew and Gentile were joining something new: the body of Christ (EPH. 2:11-18), and that through Christ we join the Abrahamic Covenant. It was being one with Christ that qualifies you to be a child of Abraham and inheritor of the promises.

The Pharisees did not want Gentiles to be circumcised simply to be circumcised, and the Apostles did not oppose it simply so males did not have to be injured for a few days. It was a much bigger conversation than that. It was about what we join and how. It was about the sweeping differences between the Old and New Covenants. The decision of the Council was not just about bypassing circumcision, but avoiding the entire older process.

And I realize some Sabbatarians will argue the Apostles wanted Gentiles to avoid circumcision specifically so they did not have to keep the whole law, and therefore they would be free to only keep certain parts of the law. But a) that's really claim #3, and b) that's not how this works.

A running theme in Sabbatarianism is attempting to find a way back into the Old Covenant, but only so far as to get specific items from it. Bypassing circumcision doesn't mean you now get to enter the Covenant but only so far as you'd like.
In the Old way, the progression was (in a nutshell): circumcision → join Israel → Old Covenant law. So, yes, the Pharisees were arguing for the whole law. But that was how it goes. The law are the terms of the Old Covenant. The law is a singular whole; it's an all or nothing proposition. If you take out circumcision then you are not a party to the Covenant, and so the rest falls apart.
What bypassing circumcision does not do is give us a back door straight to the Sabbath day, dividing the singular body of law into chunks, and excusing us from other parts we would rather not keep. Where is it ever written that bypassing circumcision makes one free to treat the Old Covenant like a buffet? That would mean the whole world could have been doing this the entire time! We've just undermined everything from Moses to Jesus!

You realize this is all still arguing over Old Covenant ideas, right? They are obsolete! We have so many articles on this.

The initial trouble was not only about circumcision.

PHARISAICAL TRADITIONS ONLY?

Let's move on to the Pharisaical traditions. The Council was not only about Pharisaical traditions.

Some people realize this could not have been only about circumcision, but they still have an ideological commitment to protect the Ten Commandments, so they must redefine what "and the law" means. Some redefine it as Pharisaical traditions.
But it cannot be that, either.

(ACT. 15:5) But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

The Pharisaical traditions were not called "the law of Moses". Moses didn't write the oral law. The traditions were distinct from the Torah because they came after the Torah and were meant to describe the Torah. I shouldn't have to say another word about this ...but I will.

It is true that the Pharisees added many traditions and that these traditions had the weight of law, at least among the Pharisees and those who follow them. But the Pharisaical customs are not called "the law" in the New testament and were never said to be "the law of Moses". The New Testament particularly distinguishes the law from the customs. Historically, there was the written law ("Torah") and there was the oral law ("the customs", the "Oral Torah", and eventually "the Mishnah"). 

Josephus is helpful here because he was from that time and place:

"What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have passed on to the people a great many observances handed down by their fathers, which are not written down in the law of Moses. For this reason the Sadducees reject them and say that we are to consider to be obligatory only those observances which are in the written word, but need not observe those which are derived from the tradition of our forefathers."
-Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews" book XIII, chapter 10, paragraph 6, verse 296-297.

Josephus rejects the idea that the oral law was the law of Moses.

Did we not spend a great deal of time on Acts 15:21 in my last post? Does that not say Moses was read? The oral law, the Mishnah, wasn't written until around 200 AD. It couldn't have been read. And do Sabbatarians not use that verse to claim it refers to Gentiles learning the Torah law? You can't have it both ways. Either the discussion was about the law or it wasn't.

And let's not forget, synagogues are a tradition of the Pharisees (for more, see "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII"). Nowhere in the Bible is there a law that commands going to synagogue (or church) on Sabbath.  Synagogues developed in the Second Temple period. It was the Pharisees who ran most synagogues. How can you reject the traditions of the Pharisees and base your entire plan on a tradition of the Pharisees?

So, when Acts 15 says "and keep the law" (v.24) and "keep the law of Moses" (v.5), there is no good reason to conclude this is referring only to the Pharisaical customs. I am sure that if Team Pharisees had their way the Gentile converts would also have been required to keep the traditions, but I see no possible way that this can be only about the traditions.

The initial trouble was not only about the Pharisaical customs.

CONCLUSION

We've gone over the first two of the three main explanations given by Sabbatarians of what the Pharisees were demanding, and we have seen how they fail.

A) Circumcision only. It cannot be this because Luke says, "and the law." By its very nature, circumcision was not only about circumcision.
B) Pharisaical traditions. It cannot be this because Luke says, "the law of Moses." The oral law was distinct from the law of Moses.

Next time, we will go over the final explanation: "the law of Moses".

Other articles in this series:

Acts 15:21 - More Law Later?

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

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

WDGS: What did God Say?

It is utterly amazing how people can read what God said, then not believe God. But those same people claim, with a strait face and unblinking eyes, that they do believe God.

What they do is modify what God said to fit what they actually do believe, by redefining what He meant and what He said, then claim they never altered what God said. I could cite many examples. These same people who claim they believe God will dismiss what I quote and just submit what I cite to the same subconscious filtration of the mind - a heart, mind, and soul God said was corrupt; evil. They don’t believe this either, submitting that to the same system of filtration.

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

Think about the end of that statement; “who can know it?” Not the one with that heart, for their own hearts deceive them.

Those Hebrews to whom Jeremiah was writing were not the exception to this declarative statement. They were “keepers of the law” and were thus not sinning according to some other “deceived” people’s standards. The deceived excusing the deceived. The blind leading the blind. The entire nation of Israel that had the law, believed they were keeping the law - believing themselves compliant - while ignoring the “fine print” of the law. The law said that if they were to keep the law, they would be blessed and if they failed to do so, they would be cursed. They were experiencing the curses and not the blessings. If you read Psalms 44, you will see that they were bewildered as to why, seeing as they were totally convinced in their deceived minds, hearts, and souls that they were keeping the law, and therefore they should be receiving the blessings. It is a carefully worded chastisement of God for not doing as He promised.

When it first started dawning on me that I had too easily accepted the teachings of Sabbatarianism - that I had not actually carefully studied the Scriptures - I resolved to examine, carefully this time, every subject relevant to what I believed to be true. Not with the same mindset as before that was to validate what I believed, but rigorously attempt to invalidate what I believed to be true; testing my beliefs to see if they would stand up to a relatively brutal examination of Scripture, being my own harshest critic. No more assumptions, rationalizations, inferences. A belief had to have plainly stated evidence to support it, and lots of it.

What I believed started toppling like dominoes. But, the “bad habit” of running statements made by God and Christ Jesus through an unconscious filtration through a compromised heart, mind, and soul - that Scripture said was, by nature, antagonistic, “enmity”, and hostility towards God - was still operational and functional within me.

Well after my actual conversion, this filter was still affecting my overall view of things. Spiritual growth can take time.

You can read the words of the things God said without a full comprehension of the consequences of what was said. It was fairly recently that I learned to believe what Jesus said about good trees and bad trees and the fruits they produce, for I had concluded upon leaving Sabbatarianism that there were a lot of nice people in the world, unlike those we left behind who were critical, judgmental, and condemnative. And so, I had to learn the hard way that even people in the world learn to put on a “nice face” and be friendly until a situation arises that brings out the true, otherwise hidden nature of those same people. Today, we see this demonstrated through the political affiliations people have, and where I see politics as just another form of religion; a belief system based on men sans God.

My personal experience however was not due to politics. It was an event that occurred outside my control, but looked to them; my friends, as being an intentional act on my part, which they collectively condemned me over, without any explanation from me.

This taught me what I should have learned had I truly believed what God said, and even commanded: Do not be judging others according to appearance; aka unrighteous judgment. Judge righteous judgment, according to the heart; the intent of heart.

Interestingly, Jesus broached this subject in relation to His having worked on the Sabbath, thereby breaking the Sabbath commandment that said no one was to do “any” work on that day. Let me be ‘brutally’ specific here, for I know some will read this through the filter of their “deceitful heart” so that they can judge according to appearance while trying to look like they are not, and convince themselves they are not.

Any means just that: any. Without exception. 

Where so many Sabbatarians fail with this is an understanding of the mitigating circumstances, where there is a legal justification for having done so. But the belief among Sabbatarians is that “transgressing the law” such as the Sabbath results in an automatic charge of sin, despite what Jesus, God Incarnate, SAID. What He said gets run through the evil filter of the mind, heart, and soul, and comes out the other side altered beyond recognition as to the original statement and intent.

He, Jesus the Christ; God Incarnate, who came to save men and not condemn them, said good works were LAWFUL on the Sabbath and even clarified good works to be the opposite; the antithesis of evil works.

It still gets filtered by Sabbatarians. To them, an 'evil work' is anything which breaks the law, like working on the Sabbath.

In contrast, Jesus’ take on it is that an evil work is already an evil work, which in turn ALSO transgresses the law, BECAUSE the act is “anomia”: evil, iniquitous - TO BEGIN WITH - and not as a result of transgressing the law. The law is ALSO transgressed, which would normally result in a charge of sin; an invocation of the penalty of the law, TO BE DETERMINED by the judicial system established IN THE LAW. Today’s Sabbatarians have no such established judicial system outside the confines of their own organizations (churches). You are guilty without a fair hearing, where your accusers are also the “eye witnesses” who establish your guilt. They saw you working on the Sabbath, never mind any mitigating circumstances.

Consider then a possible scenario that can play out in Adventism. An Adventist sees another working on the Sabbath. They inform the ministry, who confronts the member. Imagine how it would play out if the member declared his working on their Sabbath was a good work, and not an evil work.

They have already worked out what is a good work and a bad work through their filtration system that insists that even a work of employment is a good work but still not an acceptable good work when done on the (their) Sabbath; that you “sinned” anyway, where even sin is run through the filtration system, so that sin, as defined by the Greek “hamartia” “misses the mark” when it comes to keeping the Sabbath, and not missing the mark in relation to what Scripture says, this being in relation to the glory of God.

This all ignores a very basic issue regarding good and evil works and who produces them, and again, Jesus defined it all for all to read, which they do, while still running it all through the evil and deceitful filter of the heart one is born with.

Good people produce only good works, and evil people produce only evil works, as determined by a Holy, Righteous, and Just God who JUDGES ACCORDING TO THE HEART and not the law; not according to appearance like a man God already defined in his natural state as having a deceitful and desperately wicked heart that naturally judges EVIL JUDGMENTS.

Who then is an evil person, and who all is good?

God already answered, cited here. Were you paying attention? Or were you sifting it all through your filter?

You were born with that deceitful and desperately wicked heart… of stone; what the author of Hebrews said was an evil heart of unbelief… that doesn’t believe God and what He actually said. You alter what He said, often subtly, so as to conform with your evil heart's beliefs.

Good works are lawful, on the Sabbath, as contrasted to evil works. Not approved works. Not works of “evangelism” or specific works of healing, or any filtrated definition often produced. Good works are produced by those with a “good heart” only. Evil works are the product of an evil heart, only.

God could only condemn an evil if done on the Sabbath if it were already an evil in His sight, else God is being self-contradictory and evil Himself, judging like an evil man, according to appearance where you “see” someone working on the Sabbath, contrary to the Sabbath law and you charge and condemn him for having sinned “against the law” where you now wield the law unlawfully.

It was evil and sin for a Hebrew; a legal party to that old covenant ‘ministration of condemnation and death, engraven in stones’ simply because ALL his works were already evil in the sight of God, who points out they all had evil hearts to begin with.

Because this heart is evil to begin with, such people have a natural aversion to God and His ways, so much so that, should they happen upon an actual child of God in whom God has given them a NEW HEART, aka His Holy Spirit, they waste no time in attempting to charge them with sin and evil over the law; transgressions of the law, where they judge unrighteous judgment, according to appearance.

The New Covenant, which the children of God are party to, are in a condition where ALL their works ‘hit the mark’ when it comes to the glory of God, where all their works are fruits unto God and His Glory.

When an evil person, who has embraced the law given at Mt. Sinai, persecutes the children of God, the evil children of the devil do so to their own ‘glory’ -- their own self-righteousness; their feigned indignation. They are unwittingly filling the cup of God’s wrath against them to the brim and overflowing, with a law that was given to, and designed for those with the deceitful and desperately wicked hearts of stone and unbelief.

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

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

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