What Do You Mean... ‘Holy Convocation’?

Does the phrase 'holy convocation' mean we are all commanded to go to church on Saturday? Does it even have anything to do with church? This article explores the meaning of this phrase and what its implications are for the weekly Sabbath.

---

As I mentioned in my recent post, "Be Your Own Harshest Critic", Bill posted a comment on social media that said, "Going to synagogue on Sabbath is not a command from God but a man-made tradition." Bill is absolutely right. We've got articles on this.
In response, a random person protested, and what could loosely be called a discussion ensued. He ended up basing his entire case on the phrase "holy convocation". His claim was that holy convocation means "going to church," and therefore the laws of holy convocation are laws of church attendance.

Well, let's look into that. He can't be the only one making these kinds of claims. And what good timing, since this topic has Fall holy days written all over it.

HOLY TERMS

Word studies are dry and academic. I know. My apologies in advance. I'll make this short and as simple as I can. We need a few things in the ol' toolbox before we can proceed.

The Hebrew phrase usually translated “holy convocation,” “sacred assembly,” or “sacred occasion” is miqra qodesh (מִקְרָא־קֹדֶשׁ). This is a singular noun. The plural is miqra'ei qodesh (מִקְרָאֵי־קֹדֶשׁ). I am just going to refer to them both as miqra qodesh because it makes things easier.
Miqra (מִקְרָא) is a noun meaning calling, proclamation, summons, or convocation.
Qodesh (קֹדֶשׁ) is a noun meaning holiness / something holy / set-apartness.

The singular and plural Hebrew phrases appear a total of 19 times in the Old Testament, and they refer to the weekly Sabbath and the annual holy days.
Interestingly, miqra qodesh only refers to the weekly Sabbath once (LEV. 23:3). Most of today's article is going to focus on the annual festivals because that's where most of the details are. If you are going to use miqra qodesh to support going to church on the weekly Sabbath, then you are going to have a very difficult time.

"Holy", strictly speaking, is not really a synonym of "righteous". The word holy indicates something was ceremonially set apart for use only in the worship of God and never for mundane, everyday purposes. For example, pots and priestly vestments were called holy, but they were not righteous. Those weren't morally upstanding pots. Also, just because something is holy does not mean it is permanently holy. Holy things could be defiled and lose their holiness. Holy things could also perish in their use, like sacrifices.

Final note:
Do not get confused that you can just interchange 'festivals' with miqra qodesh. For example, take the Feast of Tabernacles. The first day was a miqra qodesh, and the final day was also a miqra qodesh. The days in between were not. The same applies to the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The first day of Unleavened Bread was a miqra qodesh and so was the final day, but the days between were not, Passover itself was not, and the Day of Firstfruits was not. The festival period and the specific days designated as a miqra qodesh are not always the same thing.

Word study over. See? Easy peasy! Now, with that knowledge, let's move forward.

HOLY SUMMONS

I am not going to spend much time here since surely this is something we all know already, but miqra qodesh designates a religious gathering, distinct from more general assemblies that might include political or legal matters. The Septuagint often renders it with terms conveying a summoned or invited assembly (e.g., klētē hagia).

The traditional way to understand miqra qodesh is a holy convocation or sacred gathering together of people. We might ask, how many people? The Bible doesn't always specify, but sometimes it is all the males and sometimes it reads as the gatherings were on the household scale. We will get more into this in a bit.

One might get the impression that the assembly is proclaimed to be holy. Many scholars believe that is not how it should be understood, since the people need atonement. But if not the assembly, then what?

HOLY TIME

Jacob Milgrom (preeminent Jewish biblical scholar who specialized in Leviticus and purity laws) and Baruch Schwartz (biblical scholar at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and co-author of a study titled “Miqra’ Qodesh and the Structure of Leviticus 23") have argued that miqra qodesh is not really talking about the people at all, but the time. They would lean more toward the "sacred occasion" definition rather than "sacred assembly."

The time itself was declared holy, and Israel was to use the holy time for appropriate purposes. The number one feature of all is that no normal, regularly assigned work was to be done during miqra qodesh. Remember, the word holy indicates something was ceremonially set apart for use only in the worship of God and never for mundane, everyday purposes.
I will refer you to Bill's posts where he explores how the time could be used for good as opposed to evil, for example "Good and Evil Works on the Sabbath". (Hint: pay attention to what God considers good vs. evil.)

God blessing time is not unusual. Notice how we agree that it is the time that is holy when we say "holy days" (even though that phrase isn't really in the Bible) or, "God blessed and sanctified the seventh day." When you read through the list of verses where miqra qodesh appears, you will see the days themselves are referred to. For example:

(LEV. 23:4) These are the feasts of the Lord, holy convocations [miqra qodesh] which you shall proclaim at their appointed times.

Why is the time holy? If you read carefully, you will see that God expected the Priests of Israel to proclaim the time to be holy (LEV. 23:2, 4, 21, 37). That leads many scholars to believe the time was not holy until it was proclaimed holy, just as people and objects were not holy until they were consecrated by the Priests. Then, it was up to the people to make appropriate use of the holy time.

Baruch Schwartz says this:

"Nor are [miqra'ei qodesh] to be explained as “sacred proclamations,” since the proclamations would not be sacred at all; it is the [mo'ed], the times themselves, that become sacred, and they achieve this status as a result of being proclaimed. Rather, [miqra'ei qodesh] must mean something that has become a sanctum by virtue of proclamation, i.e., a thing pronounced, and thereby rendered, sacred."
-Baruch Schwartz, “Miqra’ Qodesh and the Structure of Leviticus 23", p.17

So, according to Schwartz and others, the time was consecrated through a priestly proclamation made by offering the prescribed sacrifices. It is common among Sabbatarians to think of the time as simply being holy in and of itself, but that is not really what the Bible says. Proclaiming the time to be holy is an integral part of the law; a part you cannot simply skip by using romanticizing phrases like "God's holy days."

I should briefly note, these scholars also make an exception for the weekly Sabbath. They do not see the weekly Sabbath as needing to be proclaimed holy, only the annual days, since the weekly Sabbath was built to reflect the seventh day of creation which God Himself sanctified. 

The problem that I am trying to highlight is: modern Sabbatarians are ignoring integral details in the law and importing their own ideas and traditions backward into ancient Israel. They go to church and they see modern Jews going to synagogue and they conclude that must be what ancient Israel did and therefore that must be what the law was about. So, they end up where they began - going to church is how one "keeps" a Sabbath. This person on social media was doing just this; trying to turn 'holy convocation' into 'go to church' when it is really about time and making appropriate use of it.

Going to church is not one of the commanded ways to use this time. We will see this more clearly when we look at those assemblies.

HOLY PLACE

Understand that neither assembly (the who/what) nor the time (the when) are about the place (the where). Church in this context is a place.

It is only natural that an assembly had to assemble somewhere, but the location is an additional detail in the law. The Bible does give this information, but it isn't always obvious. And holy time only sometimes pairs with holy place. Since this is true, how can it be all about going to church? It cannot.
I will explain.

Three of the annual holy days did have a specific location. Three times a year (not just one), every Israelite male was required to travel to the place where the Lord placed His name, where a priest would offer certain offerings for them (DEU. 16:16-17): at Passover/Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. (For more, see "Three Times in the Year".)
Yet, read through the commands for miqra qodesh and you will see this place is not explained anywhere near these verses.

Moses set no location at all. He didn't need to; they were all together in the wilderness. So, he said Israel would seek the place (DEU. 12:5). Joshua set the place at Shiloh (JOS. 18:1). This was only temporary, because notice God did not say He placed His name there. It was in Solomon's time that the place was set at Jerusalem (II CHR. 6:6). Why Jerusalem? Because of the Temple, not churches. The Temple is the place where the Lord placed His name. None of the commanded rituals happened 'at church' (or the Holiday Inn).

The Temple was absolutely not just a big church, and going to Temple was not similar to what we think of as church.

When you go to church, you are [hopefully] in God's immediate presence. You go there to be with other people, hear a sermon, sing, and pray.
When one went to Temple, they prepared ahead of time to be in an acceptable condition to occupy that sacred space to begin with. They visited close to the presence of God Himself, but unless they were the High Priest and it was the Day of Atonement they were never in the immediate presence of God. They prayed, certainly. But if they wanted a sermon, they had to go find a street preacher. And they absolutely did not arrive before the God of the Universe empty handed. Meaning, they brought a sacrifice. (This wasn't about money.)

It gets more complicated than just this. Oddly enough, it appears Israel's worship was both centralized as one singular nation at the Temple and decentralized to individual families and gatherings, all at the same time.

For example, take the Feast of Tabernacles again. Some portions of miqra qodesh were required to be performed at the Temple and some were required to be done at their temporary shelters. They weren't merely allowed to feast and celebrate in their shelters, they were commanded to do so.
Or take Unleavened Bread for example. Eating this bread was not optional; it was commanded. They did not just eat unleavened bread while they were at the Temple. Where do you eat? You eat wherever you happen to be when you eat.

That is just the three pilgrimage holy days. What about the other times?

The rest of the year, the common Israelite was not required to go to Jerusalem. There was no specific location for the remaining miqra qodesh at all. And I really want to emphasize this: that includes the regular weekly Sabbath.

(LEV. 23:3) 3 ‘Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation [miqra qodesh]. You shall do no work on it; it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings [moshevoteykhem].

We have another Hebrew word now: moshevoteykhem (מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם) which means dwelling places, habitations, places where people live - be that homes or home towns. For the non-pilgrimage holy days there were no large gatherings. They were all smaller.

So, we have two places where miqra qodesh can happen: at the Temple in Jerusalem, and wherever you dwell. Neither of those are 'at church'. Some portions of miqra qodesh were national and some familial. Some large assemblies and some small assemblies. Some at designated places and some wherever you happen to be.

Let us ask... where is the Temple now? (I COR. 3:17; REV. 21:22)

This also brings up a final point. With the coming of the New Covenant, the Old Covenant law has changed. I believe all of the Old Covenant laws are obsolete because I believe the law was a singular whole. Sabbatarians do not. But where we can agree is that the "ceremonial law" is obsolete. The laws of miqra qodesh fall into "ceremonial law". Therefore, these laws of miqra qodesh are obsolete. So now we must ask, why are we building New Covenant doctrines from obsolete laws? Why are we fighting to keep some of it and discard some of it, but build what we keep on what we've discarded? How are we even having this discussion in the first place?

CONCLUSION

We've looked at the term miqra qodesh. We've looked at what it is, when it is, where it is. Then we contrasted that with how it is used by Sabbatarians (one in particular). We have seen how "go to church" is not an accepted definition of miqra qodesh to begin with. And we have seen how Sabbatarian practices are being built on certain Old Covenant laws which it seemed like everyone agreed are obsolete. The laws of miqra qodesh are inherently ceremonial.

The Bible does not command anyone to go to church on Saturday or any other day. The laws of sacred assemblies are not commands to go to church at all. What did Scripture do? It made certain time into a ceremonially holy time. For whom? For Israel, to whom that law was given. For where? Sometimes that was at the Temple, sometimes it was wherever you happened to be. But never synagogue, which was a much later development. (That is not to say attending synagogue is wrong, just not commanded.) For when? For the Old Covenant period. These are not laws for the New Covenant church. 

Some modern Gentile Christians say they are keeping the law, but when we look critically we see they are not. They are adding to and taking away from the law, which is contrary to the law. Without a priesthood and without a Temple, keeping the laws of miqra qodesh is impossible (and I for one believe this is by design). Without a priest and a Temple, how will the time be properly proclaimed holy with sacrifices? If it isn't consecrated, then how is it holy time? These are not laws where we can take 'Israel' out and plug 'us' in, and take the original calendar out and plug the modern Jewish calendar in, and take 'sacrifice' out and plug 'money' in, and take 'Jerusalem' out and plug 'feast site' in, and take 'Temple' out and plug 'church' in. And in all of it, picking and choosing from ceremonial laws which I thought everyone agreed were abrogated. God is not going to praise us as obedient to the law when we are treating the law like a buffet. As I've said a million times, if you're not keeping all the law, then you're not keeping the law at all.

The person I mentioned in my "Be Your Own Harshest Critic" post went through traditions, Commandments, proof-texting, and finally landed on holy convocation - all to avoid Bill's accurate observation that, "Going to synagogue on Sabbath is not a command from God but a man-made tradition." What does "holy convocation" mean? Certainly not "going to church."

For more, I suggest:

Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
Is Ceremonial Law Removed?
Why Not Keep Biblical Days?
Temple of God / Law of God
Physical vs Spiritual
Shadows, Nails and the Fall Holy Days
Three Times In The Year - Part I
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
Acts 15:21 - More Law Later?
Lawlessness and I John 3
Editing the Commandments
Established and Imposed

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

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

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

Righteous Versus Unrighteous Judgment

How does God say He judges mankind?

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

What did Jesus have to say about those who judged according to outward appearance?

(John 7:24) Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

If judging according to appearance is contrasted with righteous judgment, what does that make judging another according to appearance?

Unrighteous judgment.

What then is righteous judgment?

Looking to the heart; judging according to the heart, mind, and soul of a person; what motivates them.

(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.

If someone is judging others according to appearance, which is unrighteous judgment, this constitutes being among the “evil things” men bring forth. And if a man brings forth what Jesus has identified as evil, then the person doing those things is evil hearted.

Apply this understanding now to those who claim those who would worship God on a Sunday are practicing sun worship and under the influence of the beast mentioned in the book of Revelation who stands against God and the people of God.

Is this righteous judgment, based on an understanding of the intent of heart of those who worship God on the first day of the week, or is this judgment based on outward appearance; What they see and witness others doing?

What about those who worship on the last day of the week, that some refer to as the Sabbath? Those who judge righteous judgment would not think anything of it, seeing as that is the choice of the one’s doing so.

What about those who worship God on a Saturday who judge and condemn others for not worshiping on a Saturday, insisting those others refuse to do so based on an evil intent of their hearts, that being a hatred of God?

Jesus let it be known that those who judged and condemned Him for working on the Sabbath were doing so according to appearance; unrighteous judgment. They neglected to judge righteous judgment, judging others according to how mankind as a whole judges, as God brought out in 1 Samuel, cited above.

God pointed out that mankind collectively have deceitful and desperately wicked hearts. As such, they judge others according to appearance; observation, where an evil person will put on an outward act that results in people concluding they are good.

What would an actual good person do? They would not put on an act; put on airs in order to appear upright to others. They would let their good works / fruits speak for themselves, where sometimes, their good works would appear to be evil by evil people, who judge according to outward appearance; who conclude they sinned or did evil, should they too perform their good works on the day those others believe to be the Sabbath, even as those who witnessed Jesus working on the Sabbath declared He sinned and did evil.

Evil people, being evil, will charge good people as being evil over good works perceived by them as sinful and evil; judging according to appearance.

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

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

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

Temple of God / Law of God

(John 2:19-21) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. °Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? °But he spake of the temple of his body.

Jesus was at the temple. What else would they conclude based on the setting? It would never occur to them that He was referring to something other than the temple that was right there.

(Jeremiah 31:33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

This, stated by God right after He declared the new covenant would not be like the old. But the only covenant they knew of was the one they were in with God. They would never make the leap of comprehending the nature of the new any more than those Jews present when Jesus spoke what He did cited above were able to grasp He was not talking about the temple standing in their midst there in Jerusalem. There was one ‘temple of God’ and that was it, standing on the temple mount in Jerusalem.

The New Covenant law is God Himself, for it is the Holy Spirit that God places within a believer that leads and guides them; a covenant law of life.

(John 5:39) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Jeremiah 31:33 is just that. It’s about God in you. Residing in you. Leading you. Guiding you. It is a testament of God dwelling within a person; a believing, faithful person. A person who truly loves God.

(John 14:23) Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Now consider the outcome:

(1 Corinthians 3:16) Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees, who administered the law and kept the law, hated Him and the Father. (John 15:24) They always resisted the Holy Spirit. (Acts 7:51) They loved another, and it wasn’t God. That OC law was the “master” they obeyed; the object of which they were obedient and dedicated. Those among them who believed Christ and followed Him were labeled by these same Pharisees as being cursed, not knowing the law; the law the Pharisees relied upon. (John 7:49)

(Matthew 6:24) No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Those who embrace the OC law insist that obeying the law is to obey God; the two are equivocated as one and the same. God is that law, and that law is God. Keeping the law where the result is to ignore God does not compute in the legalist mindset. And yet, God stated to Moses that by giving that law to the Hebrews, they would believe Moses “for ever” and not God. (Ex. 19:9)

And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? — Exodus 16:28

This was before they were given the covenant law. That does not stop legalistic minded people from concluding that God was referring to that covenant law. Up to this point, it was all about what God declared, verbally to them through Moses. They were collectively refusing to believe and act upon what God had been telling them up to that point.

God is not embodied in the OC law, and the OC law is not embodied in God. The law is, in reality, ‘another god’ besides God; along side-of; graven images of stone, and it is interesting, to say the least, that this is exactly what God spoke to those same Hebrews who were refusing to listen to Him which they heard and also ignored.

In case you were not paying close attention, consider what Adventists, who are legalistic, have done in regards to the Decalogue, imbuing it with the characteristics; the traits of God: Eternal, unchanging, a “transcript of God’s Character.” It cannot get any more blatant than that.

The ‘law of God’ prior to the giving of the old covenant law at Mt. Sinai was none other than God Himself and what He was commanding and declaring, verbally. With this understanding, take a good, hard look at the following, often cited by Adventists.

(Romans 8:7) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

In this passage, God IS equivocated with “God’s law”. And like the “temple” those with a legalistic mind-set conclude, erroneously, this speaks of the OC law, despite the context.

The carnal mind is enmity against God, even as was the minds of those Hebrews who left Egypt. The same Hebrews who refused God and what all He commanded, aka “My law” that was extant prior to the giving of the old covenant law that was a blood covenant law where any violation, no matter how small or trivial, resulted in their condemnation. They were disobedient to God, and obligingly embraced the law, putting that noose around their own necks that would condemn them to death, seeing as they were adept at confessing God with their lips, yet their “deceitful and desperately wicked hearts” were far from Him. They were no more likely to keep that law than they were when it came to keeping what God had verbally communicated to them.

The letter of the law that kills, spells everything out in writing in specific ways. ‘Do this’ and ‘don’t do that.’ It is the language used by parents addressing their children and animal trainers addressing animals. Sit. Don’t touch. Lie down. Come.

The concept of an internalized law is outside the realm of comprehension of those who are still carnal natured and led by their flesh, having no reference points spiritually, that come from the Holy Spirit. All they know and can understand is related to them by a law that deals with the carnal nature, motivated by their flesh. They understand murder and why it is wrong from a carnal perspective. Same with other points of OC law that deal with the pulls of the flesh.

In this, carnal people continue the same game through equivocation. The Sabbath; the sign of that covenant God made with the faithless Hebrews, demanded none of them do any work on the Sabbath. They equivocated this as no different than committing a murder. Yet over the course of time, they realized that leaving an animal penned up during the Sabbath was to subject the animal to undue stress and discomfort; suffering on the Sabbath. Which then was the greater wrong? Working a little by turning them out to pasture, or leaving them suffering in their stalls?

They felt the need to be compassionate with their animals (that had value) but when it came to Jesus having compassion on those suffering from debilitating conditions by healing them on the Sabbath, those same ‘compassionate’ people denied compassion for their fellow man. A man with a neighbor suffering over the course of decades was of no value to him. Let the neighbor suffer one more day before being healed.

Take now what Christ said about good works on the Sabbath, being legal; lawful, in the context of the ruler of a synagogue who chastised Jesus for healing a man there on the Sabbath.

“Do your good works the other six days, and not on the Sabbath.”

Can you perceive the evil heart in the background? Or is the Sabbath more important to you than God and doing good works wrought in and through the Holy Spirit, always; every day?

The ‘Temple of God’ which is what a Christian now is, does not close 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

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

Good and Evil Works on the Sabbath

The word translated as “sin” in 1John 3:4 is the Greek word “hamartia” which means, in Greek, “missing the mark” or target; goal, in relation to the glory of God.

(Romans 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Because of this, such a sin transgresses also the law, where sin is “anomia” that being the Greek word that means in English: “evil”, “iniquity”, “lawlessness.”

That is the underlying structure of 1John 3:4, where sin, being any evil, any iniquity, and any lawlessness also transgresses the law that produces wrath (Romans 4:15) and gives strength to sin (1 Corinthians 15:56) so that sin condemns the sinner, where all have sinned, as referenced above, resulting in standing guilty before God (Romans 3:19).

There is a possible scenario which even Jesus touched on, where it was possible to transgress the law but not because one sinned. Quite the contrary.

(Luke 6:9) Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?

(Matthew 12:10-14) And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. °And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? °How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. °Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. °Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.

Jesus’ works were the opposite of sin. They were good works; works of love and compassion that met the requirement of “hitting the mark” in relation to the glory of God. They were, in fact, works done to the glory of God.

But how did the evil Pharisees interpret Jesus’ works that were not sin; that were right on target with the glory of God, done on the Sabbath?

To them, “any” work done on the Sabbath was evil, iniquitous, and lawless because they were works done on the Sabbath. Any work on the Sabbath was evil, iniquitous, lawless and was missing the mark; the target and goal of achieving the glory of God.

The Pharisees, being evil children of the Devil, had no interest in the glory of God and what achieved it. They were only interested in the law; the letter of the law that said “any” work on the Sabbath was sin; missing the mark/goal/target regarding the glory of God. They, as a result of Christ Jesus’ working on the Sabbath, doing lawful works, sought to destroy Him over good works that were performed as a function of the Holy Spirit; works of the Spirit that Paul pointed out there existed no law against them, including the Decalogue and the Sabbath commandment in the law.

Adventists and other Sabbatarians, insist Jesus didn’t really “work” despite Jesus’ declaration to the contrary. The ‘conditioned response’ is often made that, had Jesus actually worked on the Sabbath, He would have sinned, thereby disqualifying Himself as the Saviour. In other words, modern day Sabbatarians do not recognize good works on the Sabbath any more than did those evil Pharisees who Jesus said were children of the Devil, doing the will of their father the devil.

(Matthew 12:28) Works of the Spirit; fruits of the Spirit that can ONLY be good works/fruits, are summarily labeled as sin: Evil, iniquitous, lawless works that miss the mark in relation to the glory of God so that the working of the Holy Spirit through one in possession of the Holy Spirit, results in blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Casting out devils would be a good work, done to the glory of God; not an evil work, and Christ attributes such a good work as being the inner workings of the Spirit of God.

By denying Jesus worked on the Sabbath; doing good works to the glory of God on the Sabbath; works that reflect the attributes of the Spirit such as love and compassion, done on the Sabbath to the glory of God, denied by those children of the Devil, how is this not blasphemy of the same Spirit?

I’ve often wondered why Jesus had John the Baptist baptize Jesus who, being the only begotten Son of God had no need of baptism, yet the narrative points out that the Holy Spirit descended and came to rest upon Jesus. Jesus said it was to fulfill all righteousness. It also seals the fate of those who would accuse Him of sin for having worked on the Sabbath; works Jesus Himself attributed to the Spirit.

What then are the works of a Christian, in whom now dwells the Holy Spirit? Are they good works, or evil? Are they works done to the glory of God, or do they “miss the mark?” According to Jesus; God Incarnate who judges according to the heart where the Holy Spirit is that new heart acquired through the new birth, born of the Spirit (John 3:5-6) all their works are thus seen as being only good; good trees producing only good fruits of the Spirit.

(Galatians 4:29) But what do we witness when it comes to the Sabbath and works?

But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

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

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

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

Be Your Own Harshest Critic

It is easy to believe that the things we want to be true are true. These are but assumptions. Unless you are genuinely after the truth, you take a huge risk. Here is some advice for telling the difference: treat the things you want to be true as if they are things you don't.

---

The same things that ruin a marriage ruin a Bible study: cheating, lies, jumping to conclusions, secrets, assumptions, carelessness, complacency, shortcuts, taking things for granted.
The problem is, these tools can be found in many people's bible study toolbox, especially when they want a particular outcome.

I was an Armstrongist ...until I couldn't be anymore. Why? Because I gave myself permission to ask questions and then I threw away those tools. I decided I wanted the truth - God's truth. God is truth. If I had to use devices such as those, then perhaps my "truths" weren't so true after all. If finding what really is true means sacrificing things I very much wanted to believe - things I'd built my entire life on - then that is just how it had to be.

I am going to warn you, though - following this advice to pursue truth will not make you popular.

I've been insulted over the years, let me tell ya, but usually it's because I dare to ask questions people haven't considered, and they don't like this. But I don't just do this to Armstrongism; I do it to everything. Especially my own beliefs! The whole point of this article, the whole idea I want to convey to you, is not to pick apart other people's claims but your own.

Isn't that what we all should do? I say yes. Yes it is.
Please allow me to give you an example from a recent experience of mine.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING

I met a man online who was adamant that he had figured out the book of Revelation. Yeah, one of those guys. So many people have prophecy all figured out, and no two are the same. Trying to get prophecy all figured out is pretty much what started Adventism in the first place. Trying to figure out prophecy is what started me into Armstrongism.

So, I asked this guy some simple questions (as I do), and he called me some names (as they do), then he pointed me to his "study". I figured why not read it? If he genuinely has it all figured out, then I want to know. Guess what his study was - jumping to conclusions, assumptions, carelessness, complacency, shortcuts, taking things for granted, etc.

It read like he had a goal in mind and was just filling in spots. Wild leaps of logic in places. The majority of the claims consisted of making blanket statements paired with proof-texts that didn't legitimately support his claims at all. Nothing in his study was proved. It was all confirmation bias through and through. When I came by and asked simple questions about it, he felt personally threatened. Hence the name calling. But isn't that response a dead giveaway that he isn't after the truth? Is the truth ever so fragile that it cannot withstand being verified? No. The truth can take care of itself. But he was not after the truth. He was after a predetermined conclusion that he had already declared to be the truth before he even started.

I selected one part, a negative part about Catholics (apparently Catholic-bashing is mandatory in Sabbatarian prophecy studies), and I said this was just an assumption, not proof. He protested. In his mind, the Pope is the Beast, so all he needs to do is post a verse about the Beast and that's "proof".
I disagree. I reject the predetermined conclusion in the first place. To me, it's not a valid conclusion until after it's proven out.

Experience told me he would take me on a goose chase and layer on his other assumptions, but no! Instead, he responded, "I never mentioned Catholics."

???   *sigh*
So, I pointed out the page and quoted his mention of Catholics. Guy didn't know what his own study said! Was it even his??

That's when I asked if he would mind a little constructive criticism. I told him, "Look. If you haven't tried to prove yourself wrong, then you haven't proved anything at all."

PROVE ALL THINGS, TEST THE SPIRITS

That advice is some of the best I can ever offer you.
And, no, today's article is not about prophecy. It's good advice for everything.

Stress test your own claims. I mean really think them through. Pay attention to what you are saying, and where it comes from, and what your motivation is. Investigate the start and pursue all logical conclusions to it. Pick at each little detail. If you don't do that, then you aren't proving anything.

Predetermined conclusions, misquotes, logical fallacies, confirmation bias, false history, assumptions, group think - none of these are proof. There is a world of difference between "I need it to be such and such" and "it definitely is such and such".

I GOT NOTHIN'

I will give you a second example.

I was on social media the other day. Bill posted a comment that said, "Going to synagogue on Sabbath is not a command from God but a man-made tradition." Bill is right. This led to a typical discussion.

A man responded, "Those who keep it, follow His custom." To which I responded, "So, manmade traditions are fine after all." (Going to synagogue on Sabbath is a manmade tradition, but manmade traditions are absolutely verboten in Sabbatarianism. The implications of this are broad.)
The man responded to me, "The commandments are from God and not man-made." Except there is no commandment from God to go to synagogue on Sabbath; that was Bill's point to begin with. And now, his "follow custom" statement has become "follow command". He reversed himself mid-stride.
This went on for a while. He went to "you don't need a command" (a second reversal), then to "God commanded the 4th Commandment" (third reversal), and when I posted the actual 4th Commandment, he responded, "you can't rely on one verse." Then he brought up the phrase "holy convocation," which I explained doesn't mean 'go to church'. After that, he posted one verse (I thought he wasn't going to do that). Next, he said that I am being biased. Rriiiiiighht. Then he went back to 'holy convocation' again, which I reminded him we had already covered. In the end, he would do nothing but put down laugh emojis. A grown man.

Do you see what he was doing? Saying anything in the moment, anything at all, that he felt would get what he wanted. He didn't expect anyone to pay attention and remind him of what he'd said earlier. All of that work just to dodge the inevitable: Bill's observation is true.

This person shouldn't have needed Bill or me to tell him anything. There was no need for him to be surprised or to reverse himself so often. He could have been absolutely prepared had he but followed my simple advice that I give you today. He could have put his own assumptions to the test.
But he won't. He loves his assumptions too much. He has accepted so deeply that going to church is how one 'keeps' the Sabbath day - without biblical proof - that he cannot grasp how it could be any other way. He could not prove it was this way, but he needs it to be this way. Now he feels Bill is a threat for making a true statement.

(GAL. 4:16) Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?

Be your own harshest critic or someone else will be. Worse yet, the truth will be.

Look, people will criticize you anyway. They criticize me all the time. Sometimes I even deserve it! But that's really beside the point. Be your own harshest critic so that nobody else has to.

HARD TO UNDERSTAND

I will give you a final example. Here is a favored proof-text, used in times of genuine desperation:

(2 PET. 3:15b-16) as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

In case you are unfamiliar with how this proof-text is used, I will explain.
Both Sabbatarians and Mainstream Christians accuse one another of not understanding the scriptures. (Can we ever get to the point where we understand it all?) So, after a person takes a good thrashing and needs to reassure their bruised ego, they get together with a group of like-minded people and pull out this proof-text. "The other side just doesn't understand scripture. Peter said this would happen."

First and foremost, Peter is saying Paul was right. Some Hebrew Roots groups want Paul "ripped from your Bible" (that's a quote) because he doesn't say what they want to hear. Peter calls Paul a 'beloved brother' and insinuates his writing is Scripture. Is ripping him out of your Bible truly the wise thing to do?

Second, read verses 14 & 15: 

(II PET. 3:14b-15) be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation

This is what Peter is on about. Peter says Paul wrote about these same things. He didn't expound on every topic you lost a debate about on social media. Peter didn't really side with any group. He didn't mention prophecy. He didn't talk about the Sabbath day. He talked about these things and then said some people twist Paul's meaning. And that is exactly what this proof-text is frequently used for. Oh the irony! To employ Peter's warning in the exact way he warned against.

Do you understand what I am trying to say?
The person abusing Paul and Scripture, and Peter for that matter, might be you! How do you know if you have the truth or a beloved lie? You put yourself to the test! You try to disprove your own sacred cows and you accept the results.

(2 PET. 3:17-18) 17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand [that Paul is being misused], beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Heed Peter's advice to grow in Sabbath and knowledge of prophecy.
No. He doesn't tell us that.
Heed Peter's advice to double-down on something you cannot prove.
No. He doesn't tell us that, either.
Heed Peter's advice to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus.

You want the truth? Pursue the Truth. His name is Jesus.

(JON. 18:37) 37 Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

JESUS DEALT WITH IT TOO

Belief and truth are not synonymous. Jesus dealt with this from everyone around Him, Pharisee and Apostle alike. No one had a clue what was really going on ...at least in part because they were too busy thinking they already knew exactly what was going on.

The Apostles weren't catching on to the plan, even though they accepted Jesus as Messiah, and were with Him all the time, and even though they learned the Scriptures since they were kids, because what Jesus did and how He did them wasn't in line with their expectations.
Judas Iscariot betrayed the Messiah he followed because the Messiah wasn't behaving as Judas desperately wanted Him to behave.
The Pharisees murdered the giver of their beloved law because the Lawgiver wasn't behaving as they thought He absolutely must behave.
You could say the same for Simon the Zealot, the Rich Young Ruler, Nicodemus, Saul, the believing Pharisees at the Council of Jerusalem, and all the rest. No one knew what was going on, but they all thought they did. Every single one needed to rethink their core assumptions. Some of these would rather kill someone than reassess themselves.

To be fair, Jesus did need to open our eyes to it. Yet, I cannot help but wonder if He had to do that because of something outside of man's control, or if He had to do that because of stubbornness and hardness of heart. Good thing many of them eventually did eventually reassess.

I will pay the Pharisees a backhanded compliment: at least they tried to verify.
Now, that said, what they did was the equivalent of an Armstrongist saying, "I looked all through church material but there wasn't anything there to support your claim that Armstrongism is wrong."
It's a 'backhanded compliment' because it's really a criticism, you see. Of course the Pharisees didn't find anything in their own material that disproves their own material. Of course Armstrong never wrote to expose his own church. By necessity, to challenge means to think outside that box.

Here a vital key to it: Mind your sources!!

WATCHMEN

I remember something from my Armstrongist days that was actually solid advice. We were told that we had to be watchmen. We were told a good watchman doesn't stare in one direction all night. What if something comes from the other direction? If the watchman stares at the corner of the tower through the night, has he really been watching?
Think about that.

That's what confirmation bias does to Bible study. We can become so convinced that we know where the "enemy" is coming from that we never bother to look anywhere else. We examine arguments, but only the arguments we have already decided are wrong. We do not truly search for evidence, but we look in the approved places for confirmation of the approved conclusions. We think verses mean what they don't mean because we refuse to challenge those conclusions. We test everyone else's beliefs, but never turn the gaze around and ask whether our own position is the thing that needs testing.

That could be us, left with absolutely nothing but laughy emojis, if we do not challenge ourselves. In a world of Caiphases, be a Nicodemus.

DIFFICULT BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE

Do you see what a human mind can do to justify itself and get what it wants if it tries hard enough? Stress testing your own beliefs is harder than I make it sound.

The catch here is ... everyone thinks they have the truth. No one truly believes a thing that they know to be a lie, but plenty of people believe a lie they "know" to be the truth.
Like that Mr. Laughy Emoji up there who thought he had the truth ...until he was challenged and learned he had based his life on thin air. Those laugh emojis were his way of refusing to accept reality.

How on earth do you follow my advice when you think you're already right? On ancillary things, it's simpler. But how do you do this to a core belief? How do you do this when you think you already have done this (using approved church material)? How do you criticize your proofs on the Sabbath day when the Sabbath day is at the very core of your entire church and personal identity? How do you do this when you've been told your eternal life depends on never challenging your church? How do you do this when you are afraid any answer besides the one you already have will get you the second death? How do you do this when your answer might mean your enemy was right all along and those laughy emojis are really laughing at you?

Ya just do. 

Throw those faulty tools away from your toolbox, put your own beliefs to the same level of scrutiny as you do other people's beliefs, then accept the outcome. The truth will take care of itself.

CONCLUSION

To quote a successful author, "This is the frailty of religious identity. All reason and logic magically evaporate when one's religion is scrutinized even in the most tame of manners."
But scrutinize we must.

Sometimes this has real consequences.

Am I holding myself up as some great example for you to follow? No. I lived most of my life doing the very things I'm now criticizing. There's a difference between wisdom and experience. I am experienced. I'm that kid. The one who sticks something in the electrical outlet because I just have to know. I make mistakes. I miss details. I learn the hard way. But I've learned something through experience. I've learned to bust my backside to make sure I have at least tried...

     to be my own harshest critic.

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

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 1:9-10) 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;

Notice if you will, that “righteous” is contrasted by Paul with what follows, starting with “lawless.”

The opposite; the contrast to righteous is lawless. Being opposites, lawless or lawlessness can be expressed accurately as faithlessness that expresses itself through the rest of the attributes of being “lawless” “faithless” “unrighteous” that follow in the narrative.

Lawless is not restricted to being just the transgression of the Hebrew law, further narrowed and restricted by Adventists to just the Decalogue. It is another way of expressing an attitude and mentality of rebellion against God and fellow man that manifests itself in ways mentioned there in 1 Timothy 1:9-10.

Lawless therefore is contrary to sound doctrine.

What then is sound doctrine? It begins with the Gospel; a message that commands everyone to “repent” and “believe the Gospel.”

What do the lawless do in response to these two associated commandments? They either reject them, or redefine them to fit what they want to believe.

Repentance in the context of the Gospel is to abandon the lawless state, devoid of any spiritual attributes, where one’s attributes revolve around the flesh and sating the evil desires of the flesh as partially listed above, where there is no consideration for God. They live outside the realm of any consideration of God or influence of God in their lives. Repentance is the decision to abandon that selfish, base lifestyle and seek God and His involvement in one’s life.

What happens through redefinition of repentance is a belief that repentance involves a rue or regret of sin, where sin is strictly defined as the “lawlessness” of transgressing the OC Decalogue so that the Gospel in turn is redefined to mean turning to the law that defines sin for them, and not a turning to God. They still do not want any true involvement of God in their lives and the law provides a convincing alternate solution. Keep the law; do not sin, and salvation awaits.

You will find no explicit statement in Scripture that says you are to repent of your sins. When one repents, one’s sins are “blotted out.” There is a “remission” of one’s sins. It is a “by-product” of repentance; turning to God AND believing THE Gospel that Scripture warns there would be false gospels preached.

In all examples of the Gospel being preached found in Scripture, not one makes any mention of the law or any involvement of the law in the Gospel. The Gospel is strictly a message of salvation through faith, only. Belief; trust in Christ who paid for those same sins you are forgiven of having committed.

It was Christ who died; spilled out His blood in accordance with the law to save you. The law did nothing and does nothing to save you. It was the law that demanded your death for sin, and sin is so much more than merely transgressing one of the commandments found in the law or whittled down to just the Decalogue.

Sin is the lifestyle of those who are first described as lawless above; evil people where everything they do is tainted by their evil hearts, including their very thoughts and imaginations. Nothing good comes from evil people whose fruits are seen by God as only evil; God, who judges according to the heart; not appearance. Keeping the law; even the Decalogue, is all about appearance; outward appearance that does not reflect the mind, heart, and soul of a person. The Pharisees kept the law, fastidiously, yet Jesus called them out over their hypocrisy of appearance and referred to them as the children of the devil, doing the will of their father the devil. To them, salvation was to be found through the law.

Churches, with memberships in the millions, have embraced versions of false gospels, all dependent on some form of law that compromises faith. Rules that often are designed to help insure members to not leave those particular churches. They are beliefs built on behaviors established through their rules or laws, often unique distinctives of those churches, with salvation linked to them, whether expressed or implied.

Lawless becomes a label applied to those who reject those distinctives of those churches, along with any other teachings found outside the realm of faith and the “law of faith and the Spirit.”

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

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

Acts 17:11

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