What does a codified law do?

It informs you what is not permissible in a society, and prescribes a punishment should you transgress a point of law within the corpus of law. It may be a fine, imprisonment, or, if severe enough, even a death penalty.

The old covenant law prescribed penalties, such as restitution ‘plus interest’ but it also always, without fail, resulted in a death penalty, seeing as it was a covenant law where either party, should they fail to uphold their end of the bargain, was to die, their blood spilled out onto the ground. With either party thus executed according to the conditions of that blood covenant, there were no longer two parties to it, ergo the covenant terminated, one party having died, even as what happens in a marriage covenant, where Paul uses a marriage covenant to help in explaining how this held true for that old covenant the Hebrews made with God.

God Himself died, thereby terminating that blood covenant legally, for in those ancient civilizations, a surrogate could stand in for the condemned. Hence, Jesus; the Lamb of God, without spot or blemish, was sacrificed for sin, not only for the transgressions of the Hebrews in relation to that blood covenant, but to satisfy the totality of the law that included everything written in the book of the law, from Genesis through Deuteronomy, affecting all mankind when it came to sin.

The old covenant God made specifically with the Hebrews was “fulfilled” through death as well as prophetically, the Sacrifice of Christ being foretold throughout the old testament Scriptures.

Why then have there been so many over the course of the centuries ‘hell bent’ on restoring any of the old covenant law Christ’s death terminated, legally? Such behavior negates His sacrifice if those creating their ‘Frankenstein’ law based on the old covenant works of the law, re-establish punishments also. Resurrecting the law is to make the sacrifice of Christ of no effect. It is the ultimate insult to God and His Justice served for all mankind.

The arguments employed to justify resurrecting the law fall in the category of rationalizations; not biblical evidence. Yes, it is wrong to sin. It is wrong to do evil. What those arguing in favor of restoring the law neglect is that their ‘Frankenstein’ law will also turn on them. All have sinned. All do sin. All miss the mark in relation to the glory of God. When you resurrect the law, you resurrect your own destruction by that law.

Does the devil want to see you condemned before God? If yes, then the only thing that could ever condemn you before God was that law where God took your condemnation and paid it, in full, through the Son. You can’t resurrect the law and leave its teeth lying in the ground. You get it all.

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

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

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

Heart Versus Law

Frankly, it is entertaining to watch Sabbatarians respond to what Jesus so plainly stated as recorded by His disciples / apostles. Good works are lawful, on the Sabbath, where He specifically stated good works as contrasted with evil works.

Yet Sabbatarians will jump right in and insist not all “good” works are lawful on the Sabbath, such as works of employment, which, when you take what Jesus said, would mean they are actually evil works.

I recall being taught that the Sabbath was the “test commandment” to see if people are willing to be “obedient” to the law “of God.” What has developed is that the Sabbath is indeed a “test commandment” to see whether you listen to Jesus; God Incarnate, or listen so someone else, following someone else’s voice; those who advocate the law; the letter of the law THAT KILLS (2Corinthians 3:6).

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

Notice what Jesus did NOT say. He did NOT say His sheep hear His voice and follow the law.

But Sabbatarianism teaches you to believe that to follow Him is to follow the law, using equivocation with the law so that the law becomes authoritative like God Himself; on par with God. It may well appear to be a ‘natural’ conclusion, but it if fraught with danger.

The Hebrews of old, rescued from the slavery of Egypt, constantly demonstrated their lack of faith and belief in what God related to them. It is hard for faithless people to grasp, but God, as a result, gave them the law, which had nothing to do with believing God or having faith in Him, rather:

(Exodus 19:9) And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD.

This is another one of those verses that Sabbatarians are conditioned to ignore; overlook. God was not equivocating Himself with the law; He was equivocating the law with Moses. Small wonder then that Jesus would do likewise:

(John 7:19) Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

What law dealt with killing? Where is this law found?

In the Decalogue; the “moral” law according to Adventism… “God’s moral law” that God Incarnate distanced Himself from, calling it Moses’ law and never referring to it as “His” law or “God’s law” as Adventists insist on doing.

His law: God’s Spiritual law, is a law related to the characteristics and attributes of the Spirit; a law of the spirit:

(Romans 8:2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

What is this law of sin and death a believer in whom dwells the Holy Spirit is freed from; a law of sin and death?

What did the old covenant law do in relation to sin and sinners? It condemned them. It condemned them to death, being a blood covenant law. That law produced wrath (Romans 4:15). That law caused all to be guilty before God.

(Romans 3:19) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Notice especially the statement here that says every mouth may be stopped… with the exception of the ‘mouths’ of Sabbatarians who insist they keep the law.

All have sinned, and that includes Sabbatarians who insist they keep the law; their truncated version of it, having altered Scripture in order to have Scripture comply with their beliefs, rejecting thereby over 98% of the law. The audacity and nerve of Sabbatarians is almost audible.

The entirety of the law; everything recorded from Genesis through Deuteronomy, shows that God condemns evil and evil beings, where even some of the angels were not spared this wrath of God as revealed in the rest of the OT writings.

One of the factors ignored by Sabbatarians is that God isn’t just looking at “sin” but rather everything associated with sin that is not hampered and restricted as Sabbatarians like Adventists have attempted to do, insisting that the definition of sin is not a definition, but the act of transgressing any one of the 10 Commandments located in the Decalogue. This reduces and confines sin into a manageable ‘box’ that being the Ark of the Covenant. But sin transcends commandments found solely among the Decalogue, if you are ‘listening’ to Jesus. For sin is also equated with the flesh and pulls of the flesh, so that, those of the flesh do nothing pleasing to God; quite the contrary.

(Romans 8:8) So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

(Romans 8:1) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Those walking after the flesh have a serious problem, for the fruits or works of the flesh are all sinful, right down to the thoughts and imaginations of those walking in the flesh.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: °That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. — Romans 8:3-4

For those Sabbatarians who, upon reading this citation from Romans 8, will focus in on the statement regarding the “righteousness of the law” and conclude this is about the Decalogue, “forgetting” and overlooking what Paul wrote back in chapters 3 and 4 of Romans; that the law testifies to righteousness derived through faith, as attested to in the law, regarding the life of Abraham, recorded in the law.

The flesh is sinful, as cited above. The flesh contains no good thing, as stated in Romans 7:18. Those born of the flesh are born with what God calls a “deceitful and desperately wicked heart” in Jeremiah 17:9.

Your own ‘heart’ deceives you into believing you can deal with sin and a sinful nature by being obedient to the Decalogue, overlooking that the overall purpose and function of that law is to condemn sin and those who sin; do evil, iniquitous things that transcends just actions. Evil and iniquity incorporate evil thoughts and evil imaginations, as attested to IN THE LAW.

(Genesis 6:5) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Sabbatarians have been conditioned to stand guard and reject anyone who would speak against the law, where the law is redefined to mean just the Decalogue; the legalities of the law. In a way, this is a distraction that draws your attention to the “weightier matters of the law” Jesus touched on, that includes justice, mercy, and faith. There is also other matters associated with sin, evil, and iniquity, touched on here.

The covenant law God made with the Hebrews addresses evils of the flesh, and specific requirements of that law for the Hebrews; works of the law. The focus came off the flesh and works of the flesh, and was transferred to the works of the law specific to those Hebrews, such as the Sabbath commandment.

Keeping the Sabbath does not negate the overall works or fruits of the flesh. An evil person can keep the Sabbath, even as did the Pharisees who Jesus said hated Him and the Father in Heaven. They, being evil, were focused on the works of the law also, with a heavy emphasis on the Sabbath.

Jesus, in relation to the Sabbath, was addressing the works of the flesh versus the works of the Spirit, where works of the flesh are evil, and the works of the Spirit and those led by the Holy Spirit, are good; always, due to how God judges, according to the heart; the ‘heart, mind, soul’ of someone, where Jesus was our example, showing those who are now led by the Spirit that their works are never evil and sin, even on the Sabbath, seeing as He is Lord “also” of the Sabbath.

Some listen to Him.

Some do not.

Those who do not were conditioned through weekly sessions of indoctrination to ignore Christ Jesus and what He said and taught, having accepted a false Christ, preached by false prophets. Theirs is a Christ who judges according to their truncated law, and not according to the heart.

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

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

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

Genesis 26:5 - Did Abraham Keep the Law?

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

---

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

Let's see that verse:

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

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

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

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

TROUBLES

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

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

Also, we have a conflict with Paul:

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

(ROM. 5:13-14) 13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TO GET WHAT WE WANT

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

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

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

IN A WORD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECOND LOOK

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

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

Obviously, a large part of it was faith:

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

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

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

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

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

TITHE LAW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEGAL BRIEF

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

The Sabbatarian claim seems to be built on these things:

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

My proposed solution has two parts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Keeping the Sabbath Holy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

God's Elegant Solution

God solved the sin problem in a most elegant fashion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

How God Judges Mankind

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

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

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

Millions? Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions?

And yet, the statement has fallen on deaf ears.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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