Did Jesus Declare All Foods Clean In Mark 7:19?

Did Jesus really declare and end to certain laws? Some translations include this wording while others do not. Why is there a disagreement and which is right? This article explores the evidence.

---

Let's start at the start.

It was a Pharisaical tradition to wash your hands in a special way before eating. It wasn't just for dirt's sake, but for ritual cleanliness. The Pharisees would often take a legitimate biblical idea then expand the boundaries around it to prevent anyone from crossing a legitimate line. The intentions were good. If you don't cross our new boundaries, then you are certainly safe from crossing the old boundaries. The idea with the hand washing was, if you had unknowingly touched something unclean, then washing your hands would remove the ceremonial uncleanliness before you had the chance to spread it to other things, like your food. And therefore food could not make your whole body ritually unclean.
But things like this resulted in pushback from Jesus.

It is important that you keep in mind this hand washing ritual was all about ceremonial cleanliness; clean and unclean; holy vs common. And ceremonial cleanliness was all about making a person or a thing fit to occupy sacred space, like the Temple. The closer you got to God's holy and pure presence, the more ritually clean you had to be. (We will go into this more a bit later.)

Jesus' did not encourage His disciples to wash in this way before eating. Certain Pharisees asked Jesus why not. Judging by Jesus' strong reaction, this must have been more than an innocent question by the Pharisees. Jesus' answer was about how the various washings and rituals were undoing God's intent not just for the ceremonial law but God's intent for Israel to understand what the real defilement was in their lives in the first place. Jesus then explained to the crowd how it wasn't what goes into you but what comes out of you that can truly defile you.

When the disciples asked Jesus about this, He explained that the real issue was matters of the heart: evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil look, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. God's greater concern was not with outward displays of ritual purity and various washings, but with inward moral character.
The Pharisees had been expanding boundaries in all the wrong places. Doing the one but leaving the other undone.

It is in Jesus’ explanation to the disciples that the disputed line appears in Mark 7:19.

CEREMONIAL VS MORAL

Now for the hard question:
What about Jesus' response indicates He was concerned with voiding ceremonial cleanliness laws?
I see nothing of the sort at all. The conversation was not about legitimate Old Covenant laws. The conversation was not about pork.

Just like with Mark 2:27, Jesus' answer can seem quite jarring if we aren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation, because it is easy to misunderstand.

The Pharisees had taken ritual cleanliness rules that applied to the priesthood and expanded them to the common person - with good intentions. But in focusing on the ceremonial, they lost sight of the moral. Jesus passed judgment on the Pharisees multiple times (read Matthew 23 or John 8). Rarely do we see a Pharisee responding with, "I did not realize, and I am sorry for my behavior." or "Wait! I did not do what you accuse me of." Rather, they reacted with offense and pride and anger. "How dare you, an illegitimate son from a back water village, judge us, the teachers of Israel?!"
That is the crux of the conversation. All the handwashing in the world did nothing to protect them from what really mattered. They had neither recognized God Himself in their presence, nor recognized their own sin that was bringing them to the point where they would murder the very Author of the Law they so treasured. And no amount of washing was going to help this.

Which of these makes more sense?

A) [Pharisees]: Clean foods defile you with dirty hands. [Jesus]: Dirt is secondary. Sins from the heart are what truly defile you.
-or-
B) [Pharisees]: Clean foods defile you with dirty hands. [Jesus]: Not any more they don't. Meats laws are gone. Peace out! [mic drop]

I'm going with A!

IS IT REALLY IN THERE?

You may have heard people claiming the words "Thus he declared all foods clean" did not come from the pen of Mark. That's not exactly true. This is considered to be a legitimate verse. The validity of the verse is not in dispute, it's the translation that's in dispute. Let's see two very different ways this verse is translated:

(MAR. 7: 19) [ESV] ...since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

(MAR. 7: 19) [NKJV] ...because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”

Same verse. Same Greek. Very different English.

At the heart of the difference in translation is what did Mark mean by 'all foods'. One translation takes it as a declaration about ending ceremonial clean and unclean meats laws. The other takes it as the continuation of Jesus' argument that lapses in ritual purity were never the real problem.

Both translations are technically acceptable ways to render the Greek. Yes! Both are technically acceptable translations. However, one of them does not cleanly follow the flow of the conversation.

I side with the NKJV's translation, and I think the parallel account in Matthew 15 supports this conclusion.

THE HEART OF THE MATTER

I said we would come to this later, and so we shall. Let's briefly remind ourselves why ceremonial cleanliness laws exist in the first place.

The ceremonial cleanliness rituals in Torah were not arbitrary. It wasn't a matter of health. It wasn't a matter of personal hygiene. It wasn't a matter of the nature of animals and pots and fluids. The rituals were about making a person or a thing fit to occupy sacred space. God is pure and perfect. (No. That's not strong enough.) God is absolutely pure, and utterly perfect. (Yes, that's better.) Things which enter His holy presence must be purified. Sometimes He makes allowances, such as when He met with Moses in the form of a burning bush and only asked Moses to remove his shoes. But when Israel was required to come into His holy presence, they had to perform far more complex purity rituals. Most of the sin offering rituals were not really about forgiving sin but rather about ritual purification. There was another level yet for the priests who worked in the Temple. And there was still yet another level for the High Priest who went into the Holy of Holies once a year. All ceremonial cleanliness rituals were about making a person or object fit to occupy sacred space. The closer you got to God, the more ritually pure you were expected to be. This is what clean and unclean is all about; ceremonial purity and symbolizing fitness to be in God's presence.

In the time before Jesus' perfect and invaluable sacrifice purified to the uttermost all who accept it, there had to be a shadow of purification, a symbol. The Gentiles had absolutely nothing. And the Jews would also have had nothing, but God provided a means to symbolically purify them until Messiah could come.

The law did not require ritual hand washings before meals as a condition of entering sacred space. The law regulated what things could be eaten or worn or touched. The law regulated certain priestly washings. But the law said nothing about regular Israelite's hands transmitting uncleanliness to regular food and then onto the body... which was what the Pharisees hoped to prevent when they made the rule about hand washing.

So, why would Jesus declare an end to one part of the legitimate law as a solution to an issue that had nothing to do with those legitimate laws, in a conversation that had nothing to do with those legitimate laws?
I see no good reason to agree that He did.

Jesus did not counter from the law but from common sense. You eat, you digest, you eliminate - but none of this touches the moral failures which begin in the heart.

Fixating on symbolism and requiring others to do so was distracting from the underlying meaning God enacted cleanliness laws for in the first place. All the purification rituals in Israel could never actually take away sin (HEB. 10:11). Jesus was speaking beyond holiness and onto righteousness. Jesus was cutting to the heart of the matter: sin is real, and it can have no part with a holy and righteous God, and the water was not literally washing away anything that truly mattered. Deal with your sin first (MAT. 23:25-26). Or, to put it another way, deal with righteousness first and then you are free to attend to holiness. This is the same lesson He gave in Matthew 5:

(MAT. 5:23-24) 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

And if you think about it, this is the same thing Jesus was addressing in the ritual foot cleansing during His final Passover with the Apostles (read John 13, especially verses 10 & 11).

Here is the crux of my argument: If ceremonies in the first place cannot solve the issue, then removing the ritual laws also does not solve the issue. Therefore, that isn't what Jesus was doing.

FINAL POINTS

When we look at it this way, the verse no longer reads like Jesus declaring an end to Old Covenant meats laws. Therefore, the NKJV translation fits the narrative better. That is not to say He could not have done so. He had the authority. But I do not see anything here that leads me to believe He intended to.

This is where I pull out an old favorite verse:
(MAT. 5: 17-18) 17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

I am not citing this selection to claim the law continues forever. I am citing it to demonstrate that it was not Jesus' intention to simply declare things away.

Jesus came to genuinely solve the issue. He did not come to circumvent by declaring an end to certain laws. He did not come to take the easy route. He was going to do it the hard way; the only real way. He did not permit Himself the option of simply making declarations. He came to fulfill fully, to keep Israel's end of the Covenant for them perfectly, as the true Israel of God, and when that was accomplished, He would die to cleanse us all and solve the issue at its very heart and root.

Lastly, let's skip ahead to Peter's Sheet Vision in Acts 10. When God said, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat," Peter responded, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” (v14.) Peter was quite adamant. This response would make no sense at all if Peter was fully aware that Jesus removed foods laws in Mark 7. The Gospel of Mark is traditionally considered to be Peter's version of events, after all.

CONCLUSION

Did Jesus declare all foods clean in Mark 7: 19?

No.

As Bereans Did has always said we would happily point out where Herbert Armstrong got things right, and we think he did here, at least to a degree.
However....
If Jesus did not declare meats clean in Mark 7, does that mean meats laws are still in effect for all Christians and we can proof-text Isaiah 66:17?

Also no.
...but not because of Mark 7:19.

The answer to that question can be found in Jesus' perfect sacrifice that permanently cleanses and truly takes away sin, which tore the curtain and opened our way straight to the Father, and which ended the Old Covenant with its terms and symbols and rituals and distinctions between Jew and Gentile. We go over this in other articles.

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

The Sabbath Rest of Mark 2

Does the phrase "the Sabbath was made for man" in Mark 2:27 indicate the Sabbath was made on day 7 of Creation Week and is binding on all mankind? This article looks at that interaction from several angles and discovers there is so much more to consider.

---

In "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", we saw how the word "commandments" in English Bible translations rarely refers to the Ten Commandments, and never on its own, and that such help is missing in John 14. So, we naturally conclude the Sabbath is missing from John 14.

Today, we will go over another very popular selection: Mark 2:27-28.

Clearly, there is a Sabbath here. That's not the issue. Instead, we need to look at three related issues.

The first is the phrase "made for man". Sabbatarians claim it means "made for all mankind." Does it, or does it mean something else?
The second is the claim that verse 27 supports a weekly Sabbath at creation. Did we neglect to review this verse in our article "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2", or does it mean something else?
The third is the claim that since Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, then the Sabbath is binding in the New Covenant. Can this phrase support this, and only this?

Or, to put it another way, the Sabbath is there, but are we reading about its nature or its scope?

Let's start with one of the things we hammer away at here: context, context, context.

THE CONTEXT

To get an idea on what these two verses mean, we should take them as part of the conversation they were in. So, let's see that conversation.

(MAR. 2: 23-26) 23 Now it happened that He went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and as they went His disciples began to pluck the heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees said to Him, “Look, why do they do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 But He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: 26 how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?”

The disciples were accused of violating the law for gathering food on the Sabbath. There are a couple of things to notice here.
First, gathering food on the Sabbath really was understood to be a violation of Torah. This wasn't just some Pharisaical tradition, like hand washing.
Second, Jesus never denies the accusation that they had violated the Sabbath. Rather than argue that the accusation was false, He argued that they were guiltless. He defends His disciples by appealing to examples where human need and mercy outweighed a rigid application of the law.
He used David violating of the law and being guiltless as His defense. They were guiltless because they did not act in contempt but out of need. A key comes from the parallel account in Matthew 12:7 “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”

The most important thing to bear in mind is that Jesus' words were defending the disciples. That is critical to the context. Context is key.

QUALITY OR QUANTITY

With that context filled in, now we come to verses 27 and 28.

(MAR. 2: 27-28) 27 And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”

The Sabbatarian explanation takes verses 27 & 28 in complete isolation, apart from any context, and goes like this:

[Pharisees] Your disciples are breaking the Sabbath.
[Jesus] Yes, but they are guiltless because the Sabbath was created on day 7 and was made for every single human. And therefore, the Son of Man is Lord of it. And since the Son of Man is Lord of it, it also applies in the New Covenant which doesn't exist yet.

I was a little tongue-in-cheek there, but not inaccurate. But we must ask, does that interpretation fit? In my view, no. It does not.

It does not make sense in the cultural and legal context of Israel, as everyone there was Jewish, during the Old Covenant period, and they believed the Sabbath was for the Jews only. Jesus expanding the scope of the Sabbath would certainly have caused new and even greater issues.
It does not make sense in the context of the conversation. It reads as if Jesus suddenly leapt into a completely different conversation.
It does not make sense that because the scope of the Sabbath was far greater than anyone realized therefore Jesus gets to be Lord of it. Make that make sense.
It does not make sense as a legal defense. The disciples were guiltless because the Sabbath is far more binding than anyone realized? How does that make them guiltless? It doesn't. Jesus' defense was not, "Well, everyone else on earth is guilty, too!"
It does not make sense in that Matthew says nothing of it. In the synoptic parallel in Matthew 12, Jesus doesn't come anywhere close to saying the Sabbath is binding on all mankind. But He does defend the disciples. How can the scope of the Sabbath be His primary point if Matthew says nothing of it?
But worst of all, it does not make sense in that it indicts Jesus Himself. As their teacher, He was responsible for what He let them do. If His comments were about the scope of the Sabbath, then He conceded that everyone is guilty, including Himself.

I offer a different way to understand these verses:

[Pharisees] Your disciples are breaking the Sabbath.
[Jesus] Yes, but they are guiltless ... because they ate out of need. The Sabbath was meant to lift burdens not cause them. And since it was meant to be a blessing, the Son of Man is Lord of it and has authority to declare these men guiltless.

David broke the law and was guiltless. The priests regularly broke the Sabbath law and were guiltless. His disciples broke the Sabbath law and were guiltless. In short, the law allowed for violations done in need (for example, certain police actions were necessary, as in NUM. 15:32-34) and in ignorance (NUM. 15:22-26). The disciples were not ignorant, nor were they acting wantonly. Their motivation was need. The Pharisees were not allowing for any of that. Their main concern seemed to be that the Sabbath was paramount and it had been violated. Jesus was explaining to the Pharisees how the Sabbath was never intended to be what they had made it into (MAT. 23:4,23). Their priorities were backward.

That said, it wasn't meant to crash into the other ditch, either. Jesus was not teaching that the Sabbath could be ignored whenever it became inconvenient (see "The Law Was Written On Our Hearts - Part I"). His disciples were not callously violating it. Wanton disregard for the Sabbath carried the death penalty (EXO. 35:2). But that was not the case here.

Jesus repeatedly showed that the Sabbath was never intended to prevent acts of mercy, necessity, and doing good. Even where the law had been legitimately violated, God desires mercy more than rules and regulations. Life, even an animal's life, was not to be sacrificed on the altar of rigid legalism. As He told the Pharisees, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” (MAT. 12: 7). This is the exact same point He made in Luke 13: 10-7 &15-17, 14:1-6, and John 5:1-18.

And perhaps most telling of all, both Matthew and Mark flow straight into yet another example of Jesus showing how it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (MAT. 12:9-14; Mark 3: 1-6). That is no accident. Again, mercy is emphasized. Again, no mention of the Sabbath being binding on all mankind from creation.

(MAT. 12:12b) Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

Here is the heart of what I'm getting at: Jesus's words in verses 27 & 28 were about the real nature of the Sabbath, not its scope. The quality, not the quantity.

Jesus was teaching the weightier matters of the law (MAT. 23:23). Sometimes rest is a blessing. But sometimes doing nothing when there is an obvious need is evil (MAT. 25:45). As James said:

(JAS. 2:13b) Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Neither Mark nor Matthew say, “Therefore all mankind was bound to the Sabbath from creation.” That conclusion is being read into the verse. That conclusion is not being reached because that is what these verses say, or even what they logically support, but because of other Sabbatarian commitments.

Now, let's do a deeper dive into the Greek.

ANTHROPOS

The Greek words translated "man" are anthrōpon (ἄνθρωπον) and anthrōpos (ἄνθρωπος). They are the same word. The difference is grammatical. With anthrōpon man is the object, and with anthrōpos man is the subject. The difference doesn't really matter for what we are after. I am going to refer to them both as anthrōpos because that is the root word. It makes life easier for me.

Anthrōpos is singular. It can mean "a man" or "mankind" in general. There isn't a slam dunk here in either direction. The word could technically support either explanation. It's what's missing that makes the bigger difference.

Consider that "humanity" (anthrōpos) is a category, not a quantity. Saying something was made "for man" is not the same thing as saying it was commanded for every human being who has ever lived.
Nature, not scope.

Perhaps an analogy might help.

Imagine going to the store to buy a men’s shirt, and saying, “This shirt was made for men. This must mean every man who has ever lived is required to wear it.” That would be ridiculous. “Men” tells you the nature of the shirt. It does not tell us the scope of who must wear it.

Yet that's the very leap the Sabbatarian interpretation makes. It inserts words like "all," and "every," into a verse that never says those things. Mark 2:27 says the Sabbath was made for humans, but it does not say all humans. It never says every member of mankind is obligated to keep it. If Mark had intended to say, "the Sabbath was made to be binding on all mankind," there were clearer ways to do that. Mark didn't use them. And Matthew says nothing at all.

When we plug anthrōpos back into the larger context, we find that even though it means mankind, Jesus' point had nothing to do with the Sabbath being universally binding from creation on every human being. His point was to defend His disciples and put the law back in its proper perspective versus how the Pharisees had interpreted it.
I appreciate the way the NLT puts verse 27:

[NLT] Then Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath.

That is what Jesus was getting at.

There is another aspect that we need to see.

WHEN?

It is not just that Sabbatarians interpret this verse as evidence for a universal Sabbath command for all mankind. It is also used to support the weekly Sabbath was made for all mankind at creation. I cannot agree these verses support that claim.

Consider, before we can accept that Mark 2:27 supports a weekly Sabbath from creation, we must already believe the weekly Sabbath was created in Genesis 2.
How so?

Notice how Mark 2:27 says "was made," but it does not say when. Of course the Sabbath was created. But how do we know this refers to Genesis 2 rather than Exodus 16? We don't! Again, this conclusion is imported into Mark from other places.
But what other places? There are no other prooftexts to point to other than Genesis 2. We went over this in detail in "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2", but let's skim it again as a reminder.

Genesis 2 says the seventh day of creation was sanctified and blessed. Why? Because on it God ceased from His work of creation, and wished to enjoy what He had made. But it says nothing about every seventh day. The Bible does not say that rest was repeated. Nor does it say the rest applied to anyone at all but God. The Bible does not say Adam rested. Adam had nothing to rest from! He was hours old and had no sin. The Bible does not say the weekly Sabbath started in Genesis 2. We can clearly see the weekly Sabbath pulls imagery from creation, but not that it was literally instituted at creation.

Without Genesis 2 saying there was a weekly Sabbath at creation, where else can we go to prove out this claim? Nowhere! Except Mark 2. And we've seen it isn't here in Mark 2 either. I did not forget to mention Mark 2 in my "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2" post. I left it out on purpose because it has nothing to do with it.

So, Genesis doesn't say this and Mark doesn't say this, yet Mark is being used as evidence for Genesis and Genesis for Mark. We must first assume things into both places in order to get them to point at one another. This flirts with circular reasoning - using something as evidence for itself.
How do we know Genesis 2 says the Sabbath was made at creation? Because of Mark 2.
How do we know Mark 2 says the Sabbath was made at creation? Because of Genesis 2.

But if neither of them say that, then how can they both say that together?

Given all that, which makes more sense?

A) The Sabbath was made at creation and the whole world is guilty, including Me. And because of this, therefore I am Lord of the Sabbath, and now everyone must keep the Sabbath in the New Covenant which doesn't exist yet.
or
B) The reason the Sabbath was created was to bless you; you were not created to bless the Sabbath. And because it was meant to be a blessing, I am Lord of the Sabbath, and I have authority to declare the disciples guiltless.

As for me, I'm going with B.

NEW COVENANT

Lastly, we must consider one more Sabbatarian claim. That being, since Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, that makes the Sabbath binding in the New Covenant.
Does that follow? No.

This is a third scope change. First, the scope of the Sabbath was expanded to include all mankind. Second, the scope of the Sabbath was changed so that it began at Creation Week. Now it is being expanded to include all time going forward. I do not agree these few words can support that much doctrinal weight. Notice, nothing in Jesus' statement directly says anything about Covenants or the future. So, where are these conclusions coming from? Not the text.

Consider that this encounter did not happen in the New Covenant. New Testament, yes, but not New Covenant. They aren't the same thing. There was no New Covenant at that time. Chances are good that no one there besides Jesus had any idea that a New Covenant was imminent. Claiming that Jesus' lordship binds a law to the New Covenant makes absolutely no sense at all without quite a lot more explanation.

On top of that, the claim is inconsistent with other Sabbatarian beliefs. Jesus did not present Himself as Lord of the Sabbath alone, to the exclusion of everything else. He had always been Lord of the Sabbath. He had always been Lord of the entire Old Covenant.
Why is that important? Because if Christ's lordship over the Sabbath proves the Sabbath continues, then by the same reasoning His lordship over the rest of the Covenant would prove that all of it continues. Every law; even the ceremonial laws. (For example, Jesus was Lord of the Levitical Priesthood, therefore the Levitical Priesthood is binding in the New Covenant. Or circumcision. Or exclusion of the Gentiles.) There can be no New Covenant because the Old Covenant cannot end because Jesus is Lord of it. And that simply is not in line with most anyone's beliefs.
We cannot say, "The Sabbath continues, but not those other things. Oh! And the rest of the Ten Commandments. And meats laws. And tithes. And holy days, too. But not those other things."

So why did Jesus say He was Lord of the Sabbath? It was part of His defense. In the context of the conversation, I believe He was asserting His authority to put the Sabbath in its proper perspective and to declare the disciples guiltless. His statement was not particularly about the Sabbath but about Himself. Therefore, He was not saying anything about the scope of the Sabbath.

CONCLUSION

We’ve looked at the context, the Greek, the synoptic parallel in Matthew, as well as similar passages. Taken together, does the evidence show Jesus declaring His disciples innocent, or the world guilty? 

The disciples were in need, not acting in careless disregard. Jesus responded with mercy, putting the Sabbath into proper context. This falls directly in line with other places where Jesus repeatedly taught it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. He did not weaken the covenant law by showing mercy, but neither did He turn this moment into a declaration that the whole world was under indictment. And most certainly, He was not indicting Himself in the process.

Taken together, does the evidence show Jesus declaring the Sabbath binding from creation? No. That must be assumed in from other places.
Mark 2 and Genesis 2 do not show the weekly Sabbath was created on day 7 of Creation Week nor that all men were bound to it. So, if they do not say this separately, they cannot be evidence for one another. All that Mark 2 says is that it was created. And Matthew says nothing about it at all.

Taken together, does the evidence show Jesus declaring the Sabbath binding into the New Covenant? No. That large of a claim is not supported in the text.
Nothing about this conversation was particularly about the New Covenant. The same reasoning intended to bring the Sabbath into the New Covenant accidentally brings every law, and ultimately prevents the New Covenant in the first place. We know that is not what happened.

The Sabbatarian position does not come from a straight reading or a study of the underlying Greek. It comes from predetermined conclusions and is being read into Mark. This position requires critical details to be assumed into the narrative in a rather circular fashion.

What was the definition of eisegesis again? Oh yes, "the process of interpreting a text by imposing one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into it, rather than drawing meaning from the text itself."

I find it ironic that the Sabbatarian position ends up siding closer with the Pharisees than with Jesus.

Further reading:

Your Life Is Worth More Than The Sabbath
Law of Moses - Law of God - part I
Jesus Was Not Against The Law
Jesus and The Sabbath
What Did Jesus Say In Relation To The Sabbath?

Other articles in this series:

The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Sabbath Rest of John 14

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

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

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

Answering Trent Horn On Justification By Faith Alone

This article serves as a refutation of claims made by Trent Horn in regards to the question of whether Jesus Christ taught justification by faith alone. Following are excerpts from the author along with a critique of said claims:

"Protestants usually claim that Jesus means our words are indicative of the content of our hearts, and so it is our hearts (and the faith they contain) that will be judged rather than our words or actions. But in Revelation 2:23, Jesus says, “I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.” Jesus does not render a judgment based solely on what our hearts deserve but also on what our works deserve."

Good works are not the cause but the result of having been justified before God. The heavenly rewards which He bestows upon us are dependent on our good works. The author seems to conflate the terms gift and reward. Justification before God is not something we can earn on the basis of good works that we perform, even in part. It is an unmerited grace of God.

"But this parable doesn’t teach the sufficiency of faith for justification; it teaches the necessity of repentance...When Jesus explains this parable, he does not say the tax collector was justified rather than the Pharisee because the former did not rely on works for his justification. Instead, the Pharisee was not justified because he was guilty of the sin of pride, whereas the tax collector was humble and recognized his need to repent. Jesus even explains why the tax collector rather than the Pharisee was justified: “For every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:14)—indicating it is the tax collector’s humble, repentant attitude that is the distinguishing factor."

The Parable of the Rich Man and Tax Collector has more than one aspect to it. Further, if faith is not enough to bring about our right standing before God, then it would not make any sense for Jesus to say that the tax collector ended up justified. The only thing that he had was faith. The path of faith is the path of humility. The rich man trusted in his own good works to be pleasing before God. That was the basis of his righteousness. He went away condemned, despite having thought that he was thriving spiritually, rendering his true state all the more delirious and perilous. Therefore, the Pharisee is an ideal illustration of the ultimate failure of a system of righteousness by works. Such efforts get to one's own head and thereby insult God Himself.

"In fact, in the next chapter an actual tax collector, Zacchaeus, repents of his wrongdoings and seeks forgiveness from Jesus. It is only after Zacchaeus declares he will pay back everyone he defrauded that Jesus tells him, “Today salvation has come to this house” (Luke 19:9)."

The desire of Zacchaeus to make restitution to the people that he previously stole from serves as evidence of him having truly repented of his sins. Good works are a consequence or product of a saving faith.

"Finally, MacArthur cites John 5:24, because Jesus said, “He who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” But just four verses later Jesus says that, at the final judgment, “All who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.”

John 5:24 speaks of having eternal life in the present tense. It is said to be immediately in one's own possession at the moment of conversion. John 5:28-29 contrasts the lives of people who placed their trust in Jesus Christ and those who rejected Him. Those who fit into the later category will stand eternally condemned at the last judgment. They never repented of their sins in this life.

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

The Grace Of Growing Days

“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” (Luke 2:52)

Luke’s closing line on Jesus’ youth is quiet, yet it carries a depth that invites slow reading. It gathers years of hidden life into a single sentence, portraying growth that is steady, harmonious, and whole. Nothing here is hurried. Nothing is dramatic. Yet everything is essential. The verse suggests a life unfolding with a grace that is both deeply human and quietly radiant.

Jesus increases in wisdom, and this growth reflects more than the sharpening of thought. It is the deepening of understanding that comes from living faithfully within the world He Himself sustains. His wisdom unfolds within the quiet fabric of His earthly life, shaped by the steady rhythms of learning, observing, and inhabiting the world He once spoke into being. The mind that will one day speak with unmatched clarity grows here in silence, shaped not by urgency but by the gentle patience of a life fully aligned with the Father.

He increases in stature, and this simple phrase reminds the reader that the incarnation is not symbolic. Jesus grows as every child grows. His body strengthens, His frame expands, His hands learn the weight of tools and the texture of wood. The physical life He assumes is not a disguise but a genuine participation in human experience. The one who upholds all things by His power allows Himself to be upheld by nourishment, rest, and care. His humanity is not diminished by His divinity, nor does His divinity eclipse His humanity. Both move together in quiet harmony.

He increases in favor with God and man. This favor is not the result of public miracles or dramatic displays. It is the natural fruit of a life lived in perfect alignment with the Father’s will and expressed with gentleness among others. Jesus becomes someone whose presence draws trust, affection, and respect. His relationship with God deepens in the way a human life can deepen, through prayer, obedience, and love, and His life within the community reflects that deepening. The favor He receives from others is not accidental; it is the earthly echo of the delight the Father has always had in Him.

Luke’s summary suggests that the most profound preparation for Jesus’ ministry occurs far from public attention. Nazareth becomes the quiet workshop where wisdom, strength, and favor gather in perfect balance. The verse reminds the reader that spiritual formation often happens in seasons that appear uneventful, through the steady faithfulness of ordinary days. In Jesus’ hidden years, divinity does not bypass humanity; it fills it, dignifies it, and reveals its capacity to bear the weight of glory.

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

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

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

Assuming A Sunday Law

Claims of a prophetic Sunday Law are widely accepted within Seventh-Day Adventism, but are unfamiliar to outsiders, including SDA split-off groups. Is Sunday Law inevitable or assumed?

---

Raise your hand if you believe the prophetic mark of the Beast is a mandatory Sunday Law.
I bet if you raised your hand then you've had contact with the Seventh Day Adventist church.
Why?
Because it was originally given by Ellen G White.

An SDA meme supporting Sunday Law

ABD is an Armstrongist blog, but I need to go on a side quest today. I had a brief chat with ABD author Child Survivor on a certain SDA page on social media and now the algorithm thinks I'm SDA. Ever since, I have been inundated with AI-generated graphics like you see here.

The proof text in this image, Revelation 13:11-17, shows up over and over again in Sunday Law claims. But this selection only talks about a Beast and a mark. The Bible is not precise about what either of those two are. Few details given. If it were precise, we would not need anything else; we would just point to the verses and there you go. Nothing in the Bible directs us when to go to church, or that Satan is the Lord of worshipping the true God on a certain day, or anything like that.
My point is, Revelation 13 is not evidence but the end of a long line of conclusions that must be accepted first.

Being an Armstrongist background and not SDA, I have never been exposed to that line of conclusions. I've never had Sunday Law explained to me before. So, I asked for someone to explain it to me like I'm a Sabbath-keeper who isn't from the SDA church. The only response came from a woman who said (and I paraphrase), prophecy tells of a little church who keeps the Ten Commandments and is persecuted because they won't accept the mark of the Beast.
That's pretty much all she said.

Now, do I believe that was genuinely a good explanation of it? No. Judging from other material the algorithm forces in front of me, I am certain someone else would explain it differently, certainly in more detail, maybe including Ellen G White's prophecies. However, what I do believe is that these were the core highlights, the bare minimum that this woman accepted and thought I needed. And I do believe this will be enough to work with.

But let's stop and think a minute.

Is it true that little church + Commandments + mark of Beast = Sunday Law? So true that everyone should preach this wherever they can and all across social media, with hundreds of AI-generated memes? There are entire "ministries" whose whole message is, “Sunday Law is coming.” Is there really no other reasonable conclusion one could reach from stringing together these three ideas? For example, should I doubt my own sanity if I propose little church + Commandments + mark of Beast = Friday Law?? (Who is the Lord of Friday?)
"Little church + Commandments + mark of Beast" is straight in line with Armstrongism. They even believe they will be persecuted for observing Sabbath. Yet they have no general teachings about Sunday Law. How can other groups accept every detail but still miss the conclusion?
(The answer is Ellen White, of course. But don't jump there yet or we can't investigate the claim.)

Something is not adding up. Let's deconstruct the claim.

ONE THING LEADS TO ANOTHER

The conclusion has been constructed from layers of assumptions:

We assume the little flock Jesus spoke of is an end-time prophecy. →
We assume we are that little flock. →
We assume the little flock is the same as the 144,000 of Revelation 7 & 14 →
We assume the little flock is little because of some unpopular difference in doctrine. →
We assume that doctrinal difference is specifically a keeping of the Ten Commandments →
We assume the key difference is with the Sabbath Commandment in particular →
We assume the way to keep the Sabbath Commandment is to go to church on Saturday. →
We assume going to church on Saturday is that doctrinal difference. →
We assume going to church on Saturday is the mark of God in the New Testament. →
We assume the opposite of church on Saturday is church on Sunday. →
We assume anyone who goes to church on Sunday will be in league with the Beast. →
We assume church on Sunday is the mark of the Beast. →
We assume the Beast persecutes Saturday worship. →
We arrive at the conclusion that the way the Beast persecutes Sabbatarians is by a Sunday Law.

Someone might say to me they do not affirm every one of these steps. But some version of each step must be assumed somewhere along the way for the conclusion to hold. If anything, I've left several steps out (I'm purposefully ignoring Sabbath seal given to Israel).
Another might say to me these are proven points not assumptions. I disagree. Just because you strongly believe a point does not mean it's proven. Us humans have a hard time telling the difference between facts and familiarity. Our emotions tend to override our rationality (feel trumps real). Many of these points are about prophecy; prophecy that has not come to pass yet. And that makes them speculative at best. If the proofs for these individual steps are built on the same kind of reasoning as the Sunday Law they lead up to (and they are), then I wouldn't agree we should use the word "proof".

Here's a little secret. Today's post is not really about Sunday Law, it's about assumptions, evidence, and proof, and being able to tell the difference.

I stand by my claim Sunday Law is built on a chain of assumptions.
It's not explicit in the Bible. It's not taken from history. It's not in early church teachings. It's not something a person would typically come to completely on their own. It often ignores as much as it includes. It's rarely taught in other churches; even Sabbatarian churches; even Sabbatarian churches with a strong focus on Pre-Tribulation end-times prophecy. It doesn't take any other possibilities into account. It's predictions keep failing. And, frankly, it's not particularly logical.
In places it's circular. (How do you know you're part of the little flock? Because I keep the Sabbath. How do you know you're supposed to keep the Sabbath? Because I'm part of the little flock.) In other places it's non sequitur. (How do you know the little flock and the 144,000 are the same? Because both are little.)

And, unspoken in all of this is one more assumption: it is anti-Catholic. Not anti-Islam, nor anti-Orthodox, not anti-Progressivist, nor anti-atheist, but anti-Catholic. That thread runs throughout the entire chain. Why can't Friday Law be a possibility? Because Sunday Law is at heart anti-Catholic, and the Catholics don't go to church on Friday. It is a polemic from the 1800s that has not adapted to 150 years of time.

I fully grant that there have been laws enacted in the past regarding Sunday. Who would deny it? But past Sunday laws merely demonstrate Sunday legislation is possible, not inevitable. They do not come remotely close to proving that “mark of the Beast = Sunday Law" is correct.

(For more on Sunday laws in the past, see "Constantine vs The Sabbath".) 

LITTLE FLOCK

Let's dig into that "little flock" a bit (LUK. 12:32). 

The SDA church (and many besides) adopt biblical terms for themselves, like "remnant". When we boil it all down, the idea is to get the prophecies to refer to themselves; to make themselves the star of the show. But how can they? There is absolutely no way to prove this out before it happens.

First, we have to assume terms like "little flock" are prophetic. As if Jesus never intended the mustard seed to grow (LUK. 13: 19).
Second, not just prophetic but end-time prophetic. When I read Luke 12, I don't see Jesus intending to skip 2,000 years of time and speak only about the Father caring for some end-time church.
Third, we have to assume the SDA church is that end-time church. But what of all the other Sabbatarian (and non-Sabbatarian) churches who make this same claim about being the little flock? Armstrongism claims to be the 144,000, and they claim the SDA are a false church led by a false prophetess. Which is right? Armstrongism is a lot smaller!
Fourth, we have to assume little flock and the 144,000 are the same. I see nothing in the Bible to support this.
Fifth, we have to ignore stated details. The 144,000 are associated with Israelite tribes. We have to ignore almost everything about it except the number to reach this conclusion. The Messianic Jews are a much better match than the SDA.
Sixth, we have to ignore that the SDA church is not little. Let's be honest. You can't just barely miss a list of top ten churches in the world by size and still call yourself little. There are thousands of denominations and most of them are smaller than the SDA.
Seventh, 25 million people cannot all claim to be the 144k. Do the math. 144 thousand is one half of one percent of 25 million. The odds of any single SDA member making that number are slim. "We are the true church because 99.5% of us won't make it," is neither convincing nor hopeful.
Eighth, we have to completely ignore the innumerable multitude from Revelation 7:9. One church cannot be a little flock and an "innumerable multitude" at the same time.

I think that list is long enough. Do you see what I'm driving at here? Everything here is concocted; nothing is proved. The conclusion was reached at the start, then verses had to be found to make it look like they did the math. This illustrates why I personally do not trust prophetic interpretation. It cheats. It's a game. Not surprisingly, it always ends up with exactly what the person doing the speculating wanted to begin with. Seriously, have you ever heard of a church who claimed, "We looked into it, but we feel we aren't that church"?

I'll say it, then.
I've read Revelation 7, and seeing as I am not at all descended from Israel, I feel I am not one of the 144,000.
Was that so hard?

TWO FINAL ASSUMPTIONS

I want to drive this home with two more critical assumptions.

The deepest and most fundamental assumption for today is: Ellen G White is a prophetess of God. Sunday Law depends upon this, whether you recognize it or not. 

I am not going to attack Ellen G White. This is a blog about Armstrongism. However, you will find that the ultimate source of the claim is Ellen White, and the ultimate refuge of the claim is Ellen White. Before Ellen, many tried to identify the Beast and its mark, but it was Ellen who first popularized the Sunday Law within Adventism (whether it was originally her idea or not). So, it all stands and falls with her.
Ellen + prophet = Sunday Law.

The last assumption is the always near but never realized future. Or, put another way, kicking the can down the road and moving the goal posts.

In the mid-1800s, this Sunday Law was supposed to be very soon. "Sooner than you think." Unlike Herbert Armstrong, Ellen had learned the lesson from William Miller's failure about the danger of setting hard dates. She preferred to stay more vague. However, for the past 170 years this Law has been immediately about to occur. Sunday Law may not have been tied to hard dates, but it was tied to time and events.

As for the time --
"Soon" is not a date but it is a time. I don't see how not having a hard date which comes and goes makes it any better than saying "soon" which comes and goes ...multiple times. To whom else would this kind of leeway be given? If your kids said they would clean "sooner than you think" but 150 years later the house wasn't clean, how would you feel about the accuracy of their statement? Or let's say you get a fortune cookie that predicts you will come into a large sum of money "sooner than you think", but 150 years later you're still broke, how would you feel about the predictive abilities of that cookie?

As for the events --
"Blue Laws" in the United States, development of the European Union, statements from the Pope, movements in Protestantism, religious debates in the West, wars, and many other things have all been said to be the event that has started the initiation of Sunday Law. ("Has started", past tense.) All of this was supposed to be in motion already ...150 years ago. More recently, it was supposed to begin in earnest under Pope Francis. Well, he's dead now. Time to update the memes to Pope Leo. And they have! There were SDA all up in arms about Donald Trump encouraging a national Saturday Sabbath for the Jews in honor of America's 250th birthday. How'd that turn out? Here is a comment I saw in response to the Trump's proclamation: "People it's happening, wake up! Prophecies are being fulfilled..." Yeah. That must have been it.

You can literally do the opposite of a Sunday Law and it's proof of a Sunday Law. If everything is evidence, then nothing is.

What was it God said about prophecies (DEU. 18: 20-22)?

All of the predictions come and go. This is not unique to Sunday Law by any means. It is the same pattern across the board with end-times predictions. But at some point, the number of times "it's beginning right now" has been claimed and failed to come about must be considered. "It has failed a hundred times but it hasn't been proven wrong yet," is just kicking the can down the road. It's an intellectually dishonest way out. Moving the goal posts and trying again is not noble.

When I pointed out these manifold failures to one person, they quoted I Peter 3:1-9 at me, then finished it up with, "You’re saying the same thing that many people have said, but God knows the timing he’s wanting All to repent… And become part of his good kingdom and not have to experience the hell of the second death!"
God is wanting all to repent. But pointing out the undeniable fact that predictions of Sunday Law have failed over and again is not even remotely the same as denying Jesus will return. And I think this reveals the heart of the problem. Some people can no longer tell the difference.

Or perhaps they can but they refuse to, because they need Sunday Law to make them feel special. That would explain much. Perhaps Sunday Law isn't about the future at all, it's about the self. Legalism has a way of making a person feel inadequate. One needs something to latch onto to bring the self back up again. Sunday Law could be the vehicle the ego craves. Just a thought.

CONCLUSION

Does Revelation 13 say Sunday worship is the mark of the Beast? No.
Is Ezekiel 20 an end-times prophecy intended for a general audience? No. It says who the message was for. Seriously, have you read it? It's mainly a recap of the Exodus.
So, do proof-texts like these prove a Sunday law? No. One must already accept a Sunday law in order to think they do, which is why so many don't think they do. Sunday law is being forced into these verses, not taken from them.

The Sunday law teaching is doing so very much, yet it's so fragile. If any one of the major assumptions fails, it could topple the entire structure. What if some other group is the little flock? Or what if it's Tuesday Law?

How many prooftexts taken completely out of context do I need in order to prove a thing? 1? 5? 20? Can I say, "Sure, these verses have almost nothing to do with my conclusion, but I have several of them, so I'm right!" ??   No.
There is a 144,000, but we haven’t proven who they are, we’ve only assigned who they are. There is a mark, but we haven’t proven what it is, we’ve only asserted. There is a persecution, but we haven’t proven what form it will take, we’ve only projected.
Those points should reveal that in the end of the matter we haven’t genuinely proven Sunday Law or its underlying assumptions.

Am I saying there will be no Second Coming or end times or mark of the Beast? On the contrary! What I argue against is eisegesis and presenting prophetic speculation as settled truth. Is the mark of the Beast a mandatory Sunday Law enacted to torment the true church right where they are most vulnerable? No one but God knows for certain, but I sincerely doubt it based on the evidence provided and the track record so far.

Today's post isn't really about Sunday Law. Today's post is about thinking. It's about proper Bible study, logic, and standards of evidence. It's about assumptions and beloved traditions. And it's about knowing the difference.

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

The Law Is Written On Our Hearts - Part II

God promised to write the law on our hearts. Does that mean we will all keep the Old Covenant law? The whole law? If that is so, then why do we see something very different being practiced? Does modern Sabbatarianism hold the correct solution to this prophecy?

---

We are looking into the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, where the law is written on our hearts. In the previous post, we walked through the more legalist approach taken in some modern, mainly Sabbatarian, church groups. We found there are many private interpretations of  what "the law" means, and all are but a fraction of the whole law. These lists do not resemble what Ezekiel and Jeremiah would recognize as the law. So we ask, do several competing partial lists, hand picked and edited, that change over time, really solve the issue and fulfill the prophecy?

Today, we will investigate the second opinion. As a refresher, that was:
Opinion 2) The Old Covenant law is gone but the spirit of the law remains, the whole law is fulfilled in faith and love, and the Holy Spirit leads us in it.

Let's just be fair here - mainstream Christianity sounds just as absurd to a Sabbatarian as Sabbatarianism does to a mainstream Christian. What started Sabbatarianism in the first place? In Catholicism, the Ten Commandments are required, but not really the fourth. Protestants continued this, but then started asking, "Why not the fourth Commandment?" voilà! Sabbatarianism. The whole thing was started by competing lists. Are there no competing ideas in mainstream Christianity like there are in Sabbatarianism? With 40,000+ denominations in the world, undeniably, there are. We traded one Pope for a billion Popes.

Whatever I said about the Sabbatarians in the last post, you can pretty much say the same thing about most mainstream Christianity. The field is ripe for "so's your old man" logical fallacies.

So, what on earth is the answer to this puzzle??

With issues like this, it is wise to start at the start. Let's start with the most fundamental thing I can think of.

LEGALLY DONE

If even so much as one law is removed, any whatsoever, then we need to ask HOW was that law removed in the first place. This needs to be answered because if you believe Jesus is who He said He is, then this affects you. This isn't an opinion 1 vs opinion 2 thing. It's all of us.

I often see people mention, "I looked but don't see where [insert law here] was removed. Where was it removed?" A valid question. Many can see in Hebrews where the priesthood had changed. But what about other laws, like the prohibition against mixed fabrics? How are they removed? Before Christ, there was the Levitical Priesthood. After Christ, there was not. What happened? The Bible doesn't say? No, it does say. It says: the Christ event.

But saying "the Christ event" isn't good enough for this. It's too broad. We need to know what about the Christ event, specifically.

Let's get one thing absolutely straight. Jesus did not simply abolish the law by decree. If you go looking for, "I, Jesus of Nazareth, hereby declare Tzitzit removed," you're not going to find that. He did not do it one law at a time. There was no, "This law stays, this law goes, this group stays, this group goes." This is the place where Matthew 5:17-18 comes in.

Instead, Jesus Christ - the very One who made the Covenant with Israel at Sinai (1 Cor. 10:4; Jude 5) - did something far more profound: First He kept the covenant blamelessly, to fulfill Israel's end of the deal, then He died and rose again.
This is the important part of the Christ event we must zoom in on -- when He died, that Old Covenant dissolved completely. Nothing could change until everything changed.

Gone. Abolished. Abrogated. Passed away. In Part I, I quoted a person who said, "What is dissolved, abolished, decays, grows old, fades away was the sacrificial system." Negative. Not the ceremonial law only. It was the entire Covenant.

Find, if you can, even one passage where the New Testament explains the change in the law by any other means than the replacing of the Old Covenant. You won't find one. (And no, I do not think Mark 17: 9 counts.)
You can repeat "only the ceremonial law is gone" all you like. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how that is possible. The New Testament never portrays God as editing the Sinai Covenant line by line. It consistently explains the change by pointing to the end of the Old Covenant and the arrival of the New. Even in Hebrews 8! And when did that happen? At His death. When did the curtain tear in half? People think only the ceremonial law is gone because that is what they see in Hebrews 7-8, but how does Hebrews explain the means for removing the ceremonial law? By removal of the entire covenant! Was the Covenant merely the priesthood (DEU. 4:13)? No.

The question now changes from, "how was the law removed?" to, "how can any law survive this?"

Once the contract ends, all the terms end. The answer is clear: No Old Covenant law survived.

Sabbatarianism simply declares, "All laws survive unless otherwise stated." But how is that possible? Name one contract that works this way. Do you have any idea how many laws were never 'otherwise stated', which means they survive? See part I for those numbers.

Once agreed to, a contract cannot be changed (GAL. 3:15). Yet, things have changed. They have, or else Jesus Christ is not your High Priest, the Jews and Gentiles are not one, those laws that your list doesn't include are still required, there is no Spiritual Israel, and all Gentiles are not heirs but still strangers. These are not merely ceremonial points. Since things have changed, then we know the contract changed.

There are three options for altering a contract.

1. You may sign a new contract that amends but does not replace the first. The New Covenant is not the New Addendum. If it were, this would need to be clearly stated somewhere. It isn't.
2. You may agree to a new contract that replaces the first. The New Covenant has replaced the Old entirely. New terms, new promises, new parties. The Old is dead. This is clearly stated in the New Testament (HEB. 8:6-7, 13; II. COR. 3:7; GAL. 4:21-31).
3. You may naturally terminate the contract. This is also clearly stated. Death naturally terminates a contract. In Romans 6:1-4 & 7:1-6, and Galatians 2:19-20, and elsewhere, Paul tells us we have died in Christ. In dying with Christ, we are freed from the covenant.

We have not just one escape but two.

None of this was done by simply declaring it so. All was done legally. Meticulously. Properly.
(For more, read "Confusing the Covenants".)

This is how any law at all was removed. But not just one law; the whole covenant! No Old Covenant law survives this. This shifts things from, "where does it say that law was removed," to, "where does it say that law is part of the New Covenant." And the weekly Sabbath was never said to be reintroduced in the New Covenant.

The same selection from Jeremiah which promises a law written on hearts also promises a New Covenant which is not like the Old. And that is exactly how the author of Hebrews treats it. No New Testament author appeals to Jeremiah 31 to justify law observance or to claim, "Nothing's different. Carry on as usual."

With the exception of some outliers, both opinions 1 and 2 believe the Old Covenant is gone. Both opinions must wrestle with this same problem. The Covenant cannot be gone and not gone at the same time. It cannot be 100% replaced and only 5/6 replaced at the same time.

Now, I bet you are wondering how a law can be gone and written on our hearts at the same time.

THE SOLUTION

To say, "the letter of the law must be written on our hearts," is to say, "the ceremonial law including the Levitical Priesthood must be written on our hearts." They were laws, were they not? That is completely inconsistent with the belief that the letter of the law is written on our hearts but those particular laws are gone. (We touched on this in the last post) The answer is not in customized short-lists of laws, with some moral laws here and some ceremonial laws there; fulfilling a small fraction of the law but never all of it, yet claiming that's all of it. Where do Jeremiah and Ezekiel say, "some of the law"?

So, what is the solution?

I will put it to you bluntly and openly: the letter of the law is not written on our hearts; the spirit of the law is (ROM. 2:29; 7:6; II COR. 3:4-6).

Every New Testament author follows a singular theme. I will sum up the solution like this: fulfill all of the law through love and faith.

We've heard a great deal about this verse:

(MAT. 5:17) Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Very popular proof text. Frequently used. Top ten. Jesus was not going to solve this by simply tossing out laws (in other words, following opinion 1). He was going to keep Israel's end of the bargain. Yet, I find it odd that no one seems to quote the follow-up:

(MAT. 7:12) Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

From the Golden Rule to the greatest laws.

(MAT. 22: 37-40) 37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

All the law and all the prophets. It is all summed up in two words: faith and love.

(JON. 13:34-35) 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.

(JON. 15:12-14,17) 12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. ... 17 These things I command you, that you love one another.

It's what John said: I John. 3:11,23 and II John 1:6.
It's what Peter said: I Peter 4:8.
It's what Paul said: Galatians 5:14 and I Timothy. 1:5.
It's what James said: James 2:8.
It's what Jude said: Jude 20-21.

If you love, then you fulfill the whole law. All of it. And the Prophets, too.  That is how the whole law is kept even when the letter of the law is gone. Paul calls it "the spirit of the law" (ROM. 7: 6). The intent. The real point.
The real point of tefillin was not to hang scripture on your forehead (DEU. 11:18).
The real point of circumcision was not to cut off your skin (ROM. 2: 9).
Seriously, Paul bluntly says you don't need the law to keep the spirit of the law (ROM. 2:14).

Find for me where the New Testament emphasizes the Sabbath in this way as it does faith and love. I'll save you the time, it doesn't. But love and faith are repeatedly offered as the solution.

Some will immediately think of Hebrews 4:9: "There remains therefore a rest for the people of God." But the context of Hebrews 4 is not that the promised rest is found in the weekly Sabbath. It literally says the opposite! Rather, the chapter repeatedly points to a rest entered into by faith in Christ. I've discussed that passage in more detail elsewhere. For now, it is enough to note that even here the emphasis falls on faith, not on preserving an Old Covenant ordinance.

One will no doubt say to me, "But 'love your neighbor' is straight from the law. The two great commandments were in the law." Yes, they were. But we do not love simply because Moses commanded it, and we would not stop loving simply because a covenant ended. The Bible never says, "Keep the law and you will fulfill love." It says the opposite: love fulfills the law.
That was Jesus' point, was it not? The law pointed to something greater than itself. Before Sinai there was God, and before there was any written code there was love, because God's very nature is love. Love and faith go straight to the ultimate source.
The Old Covenant did not create love and faith; it bore witness to it. The two great commandments are equally as valid in the New Covenant as they were in the Old not because they "came forward" but because love is a deep, eternal truth and faith is mandatory. That is why so many New Testament writers can say that love fulfills the law.

Can you say the same about tithes? No. Does avoiding shrimp cocktail fulfill the law? No. The Sabbath law doesn't even say "go to church on Saturday", so how can that fulfill anything at all?

If you have one law - no, let's say you have the entire category of moral law - then what do you have? Not the whole law. That's for certain. And as the law itself will attest, if we approach this by law but do not have the whole law, then we have nothing at all. But if we approach this by the spirit of the law - love and faith - then what does the New Testament consistently say we have? All the law and the prophets.

It's the only way.

(JON. 4:23-24) 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Finally, let's take a look at that new heart.

ABOUT THAT NEW HEART

I will give you a new heart.

What is a heart? Not your beating heart, but your emotional and inner self. What goes into and out from a heart? Is it not faith and love (I TIM. 1:5; I PET. 1:22)? And what did Ezekiel say about the heart?

(EZE 36: 26-27) 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 

What is a heart of stone? What is a heart of flesh? Is stone not about stubbornness and pride? Is flesh not about teachableness and humility?

So, we must ask, what does a new heart do for the old law? If this new heart is so capable of keeping the old law, then why do all lists only have at most 5/6 of the laws on them? And why is it that, even when 5/6 is all there is left, people still fail at it? Because that isn't the solution. It cheats. What is the new heart is capable of? Love. And what is love? All the law and all the prophets.

I know someone will say to me, "But I do have faith. We have to have faith and keep the law, too."

And to that I ask, have you heard nothing I've said? You don't keep the letter of the law. "Keeping" 1/6 of the law is not "keeping the law". But if you have faith and love, then you already have the whole law. I personally believe this to be true - that you will find you accidentally fulfill more of the law through your love and faith than you realize, and far more than you literally accomplish through "keeping" a customized set of laws.

(ROM. 3:31) Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

If even after all this you still want to keep some of the law, then I say do it. The Jewish converts kept the law, zealously. Observing a Sabbath isn't the problem. The problem is thinking it earns you anything with God, and that this partial law-keeping makes you superior to others who don't believe they have to follow along.

CONCLUSION

Even as some say, "The law is the same," they also say, "Most of the law is gone." Even as some say, "The law has not changed," they also say, "The law has changed significantly." Even as some say, "the ceremonial laws are gone," they retain some ceremonial laws and call them "moral". Not because they are moral, but because they made it onto the list. Laws are retained, laws are removed, laws are changed, and new laws are invented. To me, this is cheating.

What is the solution, then?

• Jesus is the law-keeper.
• Jesus is our righteousness.
• His righteousness comes to us by faith alone.
• Our laws are faith and love.
• Faith and love fulfill the intent of the entire law and the prophets.
• The Holy Spirit is sent to be our guide.
• If we are following the Holy Spirit, we will not be doing lawless things.

Faith and love and the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit - THAT is the solution. That is the law written on our hearts. That is us keeping His statues and judgments. Whatever you think is required above and beyond that is just window dressing.

(I COR. 13:13) And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Where is "law" in that list? Absent. Why? Because if you have faith and love then you've fulfilled the whole law. Hebrews 11 isn't the "law chapter". This is what Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah were talking about. This is what all the Apostles were talking about. This is what Jesus was talking about.

We started with two options:
Opinion 1) The Old Covenant law remains, but only some of it, and the Holy Spirit helps us keep it.
Opinion 2) The Old Covenant law is gone, but the spirit of the law remains, the whole law is fulfilled in faith and love, and the Holy Spirit leads us in it.

As for me, I'm going with Opinion 2.

For more, I suggest:

The Law (The Ten Commandments)
The Sabbath Rest of John 14
Is Ceremonial Law Removed?
Are the Ten Commandments Removed?
Confusing the Covenants
Why Not Keep Biblical Days?
Tithing - You're Doing It Wrong
Lawlessness and I John 3
Common Legalist Arguments - part 1
What Use Is The Old Law?
Old Covenant vs. New Covenant
The Road To Sabbatarianism - Part I
Paul's Use of Psalm 32 In Romans 4

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

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

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