LAW LAW LAW

Having a background in Sabbatarian groups creates a skewed understanding of law in general and the old covenant law specifically.

By referring to it as THE law of God, with the attributes of God; eternal, unchanging, a “transcript of God’s Character”, a vision is built of a law that is unassailable. It stands immutable, solid as stone, despite the fact the first set of tablets were reduced to rubble by Moses.

With this view of the law ingrained into the mind, even Jesus’ words about good works on the Sabbath being lawful and not a sin requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics to reduce the apparent cognitive dissonance.

What I find truly amazing is that the same people who instilled this mindset of a perfect, infallible and immutable law have altered the law themselves, in multiple ways, both adding to and taking away from, while convincing the laity that their ‘interpretations’ of the law are valid. Those that are outside of the organization who might well provide truth and understanding are summarily rejected. Any attempt to point out the inconsistencies is seen only as an attack. “Truth only comes from within,” and not without, especially from ex ‘disgruntled’ members with an ‘axe to grind.’

The law, the Decalogue, becomes sacrosanct; above examination and reproach. Unassailable as imperfect or insufficient. It is sold as the ultimate expression of God’s will for mankind.

What Jesus said and did in relation to the Sabbath becomes an interesting test to those with the wit to recognize it. It comes down to who or what you are going to believe in regards to which one has the greater authority in your mind, heart, and soul.

Jesus, God Incarnate, who identifies Himself as the One who was there providing Israel with their “salvation” from Egypt, and the one who thundered verbally the Decalogue to the Hebrews from Mount Sinai, was now declaring to the offspring of those Israelites that good works are lawful on the Sabbath; good works as contrasted to evil works, with no other categorization, explanation, or clarification in regards to the commandment which declares no one was to do “any” work on the Sabbath; labor that included even the preparation of a meal.

Instead of choosing between the two opposing issues, people attempt to reconcile the two, where one has to be modified to eliminate the cognitive dissonance or reduce it to a point where the dissonance can be tolerated.

The two greatest commandments in the law, which are not found in the Decalogue, state:

(Matthew 22:36-40) Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Everything else in the law, including the Decalogue, hang on these two primary commandments.

The Sabbath was being used by Jesus as a test, even as He tested Adam and Eve with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, where the serpent was right there promoting it.

When it came to the old covenant law at the time Jesus walked the earth in the flesh, it was the Pharisees and other religious elite who administered and taught the law, even the Decalogue. Jesus pointed out these same Pharisees were evil-hearted, doing the will of their true father, the devil. How then are they any different than those today who claim to be the religious elite who do the same exact thing those Pharisees did in teaching the law?

But but but… it’s GOD’S LAW!

Yes indeedee. And so was that Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil "GOD’S TREE", whose fruit, the outcome of partaking of it, brought death. God created that tree. He put it there. It was God's tree. The tree itself wasn't evil.

This doesn’t change the situation between God Incarnate and the Sabbath of the Decalogue where the Sabbath said all were to cease from any work and Jesus now declaring good works lawful; good works as contrasted to evil works.

You, the Adventist or other Sabbatarian reading this, underwent conditioning by the leadership so that you could not see the real and true way this is reconciled. You are conditioned not to see it; not to agree with it; to reject it out of hand.

Good works - truly good works - are never a sin, and evil works are never good and lawful. And God, foreseeing this situation, inspired Isaiah to write:

(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 an important question to ponder… do evil people believe they are good or evil?
By embracing the law, as did the Pharisees, the evil children of the devil, they thought they were good, doing the good will of God, being the legitimate children of righteous Abraham. And the people who saw their works of law thought them to be righteous. Unlike this Jesus, who they intimated was an uneducated pauper from a backwater village and illegitimately conceived.

Legalism is a condition of the mind, heart and soul. Some people look to the law for their answers to life’s situations, where the “transgression of the law” is deemed to be sin, regardless. Good and evil are determined by and through the law. Keeping the law is good and righteous; breaking the law, transgressing it, is evil and sin.

But… the Pharisees kept the law. They did. And with greater dedication than any Adventist or Sabbatarian alive today. And Jesus STILL referred to them as children of the devil, doing the will of their father the devil, even though they were focused solely on the law. They would transverse earth and sea to convert a proselyte who ended up twice the child of hell those Pharisees were, according to Jesus’ assessment of their activities, where it is unavoidable that their proselytes were being taught the law and how to keep it.
And so the excuse is concocted that the failure of the Pharisees was that they added to and took away from the law; a thing which modern "law-keepers" also do. But Jesus' true diagnoses of their problem was not about their actions, but about their hearts. The motivation and the intent which was being masked by the outward display.

(John 1:17) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Simple logic should tell you that grace and truth therefore did not come through the law, despite statements by those who were under the law, given that the law was the means whereby God punished those with no love of truth; the Great Lie they believed that, in the end, would be the means to their destruction.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, we are informed that God has a particular fate in store for those with no love of truth, and the law is suspect in this respect:

(2 Thessalonians 2:10-12) And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

If law was by Moses and truth by Jesus, then law is not what is being referred to as "truth" here. The law curses those under the law.

(Galatians 3:10) For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Small wonder that Adventists would pare the law down to just the Decalogue. They must, as there is no other way to keep it. But in doing so, they furthered their own condemnation. "All things" it says.

You might well claim that this “unrighteousness” that people had pleasure in could only be related to not keeping the law, but consider there is also an associated unrighteousness in Scripture attached to not believing the Gospel and the law of faith and the Spirit that Adventists and other Sabbatarians insist is still the old covenant law (meaning the Decalogue).

(Matthew 5:20) For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The righteousness of the Pharisees was derived through the law, and it was self-righteousness; a glorification of the self and not God. The glorification of God occurs when one’s righteousness is derived from God through faith, even as was Abraham’s righteousness who believed God and was counted as righteous.

The true believer was saved and even loved by God while still a sinner; where God justifies the ungodly, who in turn are truly thankful and offer up praise to God to His glory, whereas the Pharisee in the narrative with the Publican, was busy adulating Himself while denigrating the Publican who ended up going home justified by God.

Scripture is replete with clues about the law and those with evil hearts who embrace it then use it to further their evil agendas. The argumentations that abound against this whole concept are replete with denials based not in biblical evidence but in rationalizations and accusations and other methods commonly employed in deceptions and deceptive reasoning. And, you will always hear about the sin of rejecting the law, of speaking against the law, even as they so charged Jesus, Paul, and Stephen the Martyr. Law, law, law, all the while ignoring the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, love, and faith; something the faithless Hebrews, who were given the law, could never in a million years comply with, given the condition of their evil hearts of 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

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

Editing The Commandments

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

WHO ARE YOU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please pay very close attention to three key things here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's take this one step farther.

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

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

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

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

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

COVENANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Sabbatarianism to work, it needs the covenant law to apply to all. If you make that contract document into a list of ten do's and don'ts, if you make "you" and "your" refer to yourself, that's a change to the eternal and perfect and unchanging law. For the law to apply to all, the Commandments must be changed.

WHAT TO DO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If You Love Me Keep My Commandments
Are The Ten Commandments Removed?
Is the Sabbath A Test Commandment?
What Does The New Testament Teach About Law and Grace?
Sunday, or Herbert Armstrong?
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
What Did Jesus Say In Relation To The Sabbath?
Constantine vs The Sabbath
The Covenant and The Testimony
Common Legalist Arguments - Part II
The Road to Sabbatarianism - Part I
Is Ceremonial Law Removed?
Without Law There Is No Sin
What Use Is The Old Law?

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Lawless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Old Heart — New Heart

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

There are several things wrong with this belief.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Evil Hearts; Good Hearts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biblical Evidence

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

Christians are righteous - due to faith, not law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Sabbath and Sin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murder is a sin; an evil, iniquitous act that ALSO breaks the law. The law is what prescribes the punishment for sin. The law pointed out sin, it did not create it.

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

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

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

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

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

One who sins ALSO transgresses the law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They too had it all backwards.

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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