Denying Babel, Erasing Israel

All attempts to get some Old Covenant law without actually entering the Old Covenant, to get what was given to Israel without joining Israel, are attempts to undo the rejection of the Gentiles without Christ's redemption.

---

In the past, we've talked about the many "back doors" which Sabbatarians create to sneak into the Old Covenant and snatch the Sabbath day along with a few other laws, leaving everything else behind. So many back doors! (For more, see the "Common Legalist Arguments" series.)
We have also talked about how God disinherited the Gentiles. When mankind rejected Him for the third time, God disinherited them. Immediately after Babel, He called Abraham to be the father of the covenant people Israel who would eventually be the means for the coming of the Messiah who was destined to heal the rejection of the Gentiles. (For more, see "Once and Future Kingdom - Part II" and the "What of the Gentiles" series.)
We have talked about how Israel was formed to be the covenant nation. The law and the prophets were given to Israel alone. If you wanted a relationship with the true God, you joined Israel. You joined Israel, you got the law. You can easily see the law was for Israel just by reading how it was written. (For more, see the "Acts 15" series and "Editing the Commandments".)

There is a very distinct difference between Jew and Gentile in the Old Testament. To Israel were given "the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises" (ROM. 9:4). Gentiles were strangers to these things (EPH. 2:12); sinners and worshippers of demons. Yet, they were destined to be redeemed by the Messiah (GEN. 12:3).

To sum up, we need to have in mind these three things: 1) Gentile Sabbatarians want some of the law, 2) but the Gentiles were disinherited until Messiah could redeem them, 3) and the law was given to the covenant people Israel to guard them until Messiah could come, so if you want the covenant law you must join Israel.

But Sabbatarianism says no, the law was for all mankind. 

ERASE AND REPLACE

While writing the Acts 15 articles, these points came together and something occurred to me. All of these back doors into the Old Covenant and claims of universal laws that we've reviewed over the years are really attempts to vacate God's decision to disinherit the Gentiles. To break into the Old Covenant by force, shove Israel aside, and take what was given to them. Since the Gentiles were disinherited and the only way to bring them back was to send the Messiah to redeem them, then Gentiles inviting themselves into Israel's covenant is also an attempt at redemption without the Redeemer.

Denying Babel and erasing Israel. Consciously done with forethought and intent? No. But it is what it is all the same.
And that's a good thing? That's "obedience"?
You might be wondering how I came to those conclusions.

The now defunct Old Covenant with its terms - its laws - applied to Israel. Alone. It says this repeatedly. I'm not talking about an edited, romanticized, "the law predated Israel" version of the law. I mean the actual law as written. The law. Look through the Ten Commandments. It's even in the very description of the glorious Sabbath day itself:

(EXO. 31:13, 16-17) 13 “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. ... 16 Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.

Between God and Israel, forever; not God and everyone.

Three times in four verses it makes this clear. Sabbatarians ignore this and claim these verses say the Sabbath was for all mankind because verse 17 mentions creation. Read it carefully. It does not say the Sabbath was created on day 7. It does not say it was commanded for mankind on day 7. It says God rested on day 7. Everything else is assumed in.
As an aside, someone might wonder how else it should be understood. Verse 17 is saying because God rested on the seventh day of creation, therefore He put Israel's Sabbath rest on the seventh day of the week. (Note, no mention of going to church.) The Sabbath draws imagery from creation. It is not saying the Sabbath was created and given to all mankind on the seventh day of creation. Genesis 2 doesn't say that either. (For more, see "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2".)

If it was an obligation for all, then how is it a special sign for Israel .. a special sign for Israel forever? Doesn't a sign require some kind of exclusivity?

If the Old Covenant with its terms - the law - applied to all mankind and not to Israel alone, then what was the point of Israel? If we say, "Look what God says to us," when we turn to Exodus or Leviticus (just for example), then what was given to Israel? If we say, "The Covenant is for everyone," then what was the Covenant with Israel for?
If the law is for people outside the covenant, then what is the point of being inside? If the Sabbath is for the stranger, then what does it mean to be part of the community? What is disinheritance if it is the same as inheritance?  Paul might as well have said, "What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Meh. What's the difference?"

This Sabbatarian view looks to me like rank usurpation of Israel's place as the chosen people of the Old Covenant. Is this not a denial that the Gentiles were in fact disinherited to begin with? Is that not a countermanding of God's judgment? It vacates God's decision. What gives man the right to overrule God?

Denying Babel and erasing Israel.

VEGAS-STYLE

Sabbatarianism doesn't want the whole law from Israel, though. No. Only some laws. Herbert Armstrong claimed if circumcision were required then the whole law would be required, including the ceremonial law. And he was right! That's exactly what Paul said. Because in this context, it would mean you've joined Israel and taken on Israel's covenant responsibilities. But Armstrong' thought he'd found a loophole. His point was, if circumcision is avoided then we are free to keep some of the law without being obligated to all of it. That is what he took away from Acts 15.
Think about this, though.
The inescapable result of that virtual "law buffet" is that we've just undermined everything from Abraham to Jesus. How so? Because it circumvents Abraham and Israel and Jesus.

How does it circumvent Abraham and Israel?

Circumcision was the act, the sign and seal, which entered a man and his family into the Abrahamic covenant. Jew and Gentile alike. If a Gentile did these things, he joined Israel and ceased being a Gentile. If a Jew would not do these things, they were cut off from their people. Upon entering the Abrahamic Covenant, these ones were joined to the covenant people of Israel. By joining Israel they were also bound to Israel's Old Covenant obligations - all of them. The Covenant and its law is a singular, indivisible whole. Each person may not have been required to observe every last one of the 613 laws, but they were bound to it all. And the act, the sign and seal, of their participation in the Old Covenant was the Sabbath day.
Circumcision → join Israel → Old Covenant law → Sabbath day.
Herbert Armstrong said if you avoid the first sign (and thus circumvent Abraham), you are free to get Israel's signs and laws without joining them (and thus circumvent Israel). To claim what is Israel's without any right.

Erasing Israel.

Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not steal"? Excuse me if I don't agree that is what the Apostles proposed and the Pharisees aligned to.

How does it circumvent Jesus?

Consider this - if we can do that now, if we can circumvent Abraham and Israel to have a "law buffet" now, then we could always have done it.
Circumcision and the Sabbath were the signs of two covenants that the Gentiles were not part of. In those days, God was not their God and they were not His people. The means for Gentiles to be reclaimed was Jesus. If those Gentiles could simply sidestep Abraham and Israel to ingratiate themselves back into God's good graces on their own, then they have circumvented Jesus. This is another way of saying those Gentiles of old could un-reject themselves. No need for a Redeemer. No Messiah necessary. No Israel necessary. They simply vacate God's judgment, and all it took was avoiding circumcision.

Denying Babel.

We've just undermined everything from Abraham to Jesus. "Hi God! We know you kicked us out, but we've thought about it and we've decided we're back. Shabbat Shalom!"

Are you objecting? Then you're objecting that it can be done now as well!

"But Jesus is my Redeemer," I will no doubt hear. Yes ... if you accept Him as such. Please do! But is He really? He did not redeem us into the Old Covenant but the New (GAL. 4:21-31). If He truly is your Redeemer, then what is with these many attempts to find a back door into the Old Covenant to get that shiny, candy-like law you so covet (GAL. 5:4)??

Do some not covet?
Look at how some want to usurp Israel. Look at British-Israelism/Anglo-Israelism. They defy all history and genetics so they can pretend to be Israel in order to take what is not theirs. A hundred versions of where and how it played out, and none agree. Or look at the way some pretend to speak Hebrew. "Jesus wasn't His name, it was [insert spelling of the month]." Yah, Yahashua, Yeshua, Yoshua, Yahua, Jehovah, etc etc etc. Changing all the time. A hundred spellings and they're all the most correct one. Arguing amongst themselves over the right way to to render the Hebrew into English, as if Hebrew is some magic spell that will grant you special power. "I say Yasheshuech rather than Jesus, and sh'abbat rather than Sabbath. God will hear me but not you!"
Is that not usurping Israel? Is that not covetousness?

The catch-22 here is, if you are Israel, then you are beholden to all of Israel's covenant responsibilities. Avoiding circumcision will not help you. The "law buffet" is closed. Can't have it both ways.

THE NEW OLD COVENANT

Someone might say to me that this 'bypass circumcision' option only became available after Jesus. But that comment means a) Jesus fundamentally modified the Old Covenant rather than ending it at His death and replacing it with the New Covenant, and b) takes us right back again to the heart of what the Jerusalem Council was debating.

In the Jerusalem Council, the choices were:
A) [Pharisees] circumcision → join Israel → Old Covenant law, as it had always been, or
B) [Apostles] the Gentiles were cleansed and elect without joining Israel, and thus they were not entering into any of Israel's legal obligations. Gentiles were not joining Israel and the Old Covenant; all were joining the Body of Christ in the New Covenant.
It's A) all, or B) nothing. There is no C) law buffet.

The usual response to this is, "One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.". But no. Only if the Gentile was intent on joining in the worship of God. Exodus 12:49 appears in a section that literally spells this out. Same with Numbers 15:16.
The only laws the Apostles required of the Gentiles were the laws that always applied to all Gentiles in Israel, whether they were joining the worship of God or not. And James confirmed this years later in Acts 21. Who had the law and the traditions? The Jewish converts. Who was taught no such thing? The Gentile converts. (For more, see "Acts 15 - What Was Debated?".)

No, this 'bypass circumcision to get some law' option did not become available after Jesus. It was never an option. There was never the possibility of sitting on a fence between the Old Covenant and the New; truly satisfying neither. Either you believe Jesus did something utterly game-changing, or you believe He did practically nothing. Take your pick. Either way, there is no law buffet.

That isn't what Sabbatarianism needs to happen, though. With option C we are right back again to nullifying everything from Abraham to Jesus. And around and around we shall go.

SAY MY NAME

"It's God's law!" Yes, but to whom? The Sabbath was a sign to whom forever? The Ten Commandments were for whom? The law itself literally says it's for Israel. Over and over and over again. To get that law, Sabbatarianism erases Israel and inserts themselves. Every time Sabbatarians erase Israel - saying things like, "Moses told people," (meaning us) or "God said to us," etc etc - they show how they believe the Gentiles were not strangers at all and there was no substantive point to Israel.

Take this meme pictured here for one example of myriads. Ignore the obvious 'doom and gloom' emotional manipulation and just look at the first line. "Moses told the people," it says. Is there anything odd about that? I asked the author a simple question: "What people?" That's literally all I said. The author clearly did not like this and responded rather harshly, "If you are asking that question, that’s telling me you don’t understand history, biblical history and you lack hermeneutics! I will not entertain arguments here." To which I responded, "Why not just write the people to whom Moses spoke?" No response.

What about my question was so threatening? There is a one-word answer, and it would be simple to write: Israel.
Moses did not tell "people" (meaning the world); he told Israel.

But we can't have that, can we? We need to edit Israel out so we can replace it with "us" because the goal is to get that law (some of it), to take what is not ours, and to look sanctimonious and holy and obedient as we do it. Consider the absurdity: We disobey God if we don't vacate God's judgment against the Gentiles, replace Israel as the chosen people, heavily edit the law so we can keep a small fraction of it, and do it all through backdoors!?!
"We're obeying!"
Sure you are!

You know exactly what was threatening about my question. The author knew it. Her statement, "I will not entertain arguments here," gives it away. All that, "you don’t understand history," stuff was just bluster and distraction. She knew that to say "Israel" was to betray her goal. That is why she snapped at me.

CONCLUSION

This is what goes on behind the curtain:
Reverse Gentile disinheritance → replace Israel → heavily edit the law → retain a fraction of it → claim we love Torah and we're obeying God's will.
I reject all of that.

Here is what I see in the Bible:
Gentile disinheritance → Israel called and given the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the service of God, and the promises → Messiah comes and dies to redeem us → believing Jews and Gentiles join the Body of Christ → following the Holy Spirit into righteousness by faith expressed in acts of love.

It's better to give than receive, but it's better to receive than to take.

I do have a deep respect for the law, even if I don't believe the letter of those written codes directly apply to me. There is much to be learned from the law even if it was not mine to keep. And what do I respect most? The law shows my insufficiency and need for a Savior. Those laws belonged to Israel. It is their heritage. I can't have the law ...unless I join Israel. In which case I get all the law, including its condemnations (GAL. 5:3). But that's the wrong Covenant.

Know that those things we look to get from the law, like righteousness and obedience, do not come from the law in the first place. Sabbatarianism confuses law with righteousness. True righteousness does not come from the law. The law shows us that we are not righteous, then punishes us for it. So why do we pursue it? Rather, pursue what can bring these things. The righteousness God is looking for, the righteousness the patriarchs had, is the righteousness which only comes by faith - His own righteousness. In us and credited to us by faith from first to last.
Sabbatarianism goes chasing after the wrong thing in the wrong place, and causes chaos along the way.

There is no back door into the Old Covenant. There is no secret tunnel to the Sabbath day. The buffet is a lie. Changing Genesis 2 is pointless. Misquoting Mark 2 will not avail. Bypassing Israel or pretending to be Israel is futile. Just let what was written be what it is. The Gentiles were on the outside; Israel was not. If you are a Gentile, then accept it. Own it. Take the L. Have that humility. Be all the more thankful for what God did through Jesus Christ. Join the New Covenant. Our efforts at changing the law to make it applicable to all people circumvents the old process and the new. It undermines everything from Abraham to Jesus. It devalues the Jews. It vacates God's judgment. It diminishes the Messiah. I want nothing to do with this.

I have an underlying theme in my articles which isn't readily apparent: Christ is sufficient. In this case, it takes the form of Christ is the door, and anyone who enters in any other way is a thief and a robber. I could title this article "Christ is the door."

I am a Gentile. I have no business in this, in and of myself. I am excluded from those things. Hopeless. But thanks only to the grace of God, I am now redeemed by the blood of Jesus. Those who were not His are again His. Only by being grafted into Him are we inheritors of the promises to Abraham. As Paul said; a tree we do not naturally belong in. Not because of the law and not to law-keeping, but to faith in Christ expressed in love. I should be eternally grateful to Christ for this thing which He didn't have to do and I didn't earn. 

I enter by the front door. As for me and my house, Christ is sufficient.

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

Editing the Ten Commandments
Common Legalist Arguments - Part I
If You Love Me Keep My Commandments
The Covenant and The Testimony
What Does The New Testament Teach About Law and Grace?
Confusing the Covenants
Parties to the Covenants
Is Ceremonial Law Removed?
Without Law There Is No Sin
What Use Is The Old Law?
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
Are The Ten Commandments Removed?
Is the Sabbath A Test Commandment?
Acts 15 - More Law Later?

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

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

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

Cloaking the Heart With the Sabbath

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

This is God speaking. It is not the opinion of some man. It is a statement of fact and truth, from the mouth of God.

(Amos 8:4-8) Hear this, O ye that swallow up the needy, even to make the poor of the land to fail, Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit? That we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes; yea, and sell the refuse of the wheat? The LORD hath sworn by the excellency of Jacob, Surely I will never forget any of their works. Shall not the land tremble for this, and every one mourn that dwelleth therein? and it shall rise up wholly as a flood; and it shall be cast out and drowned, as by the flood of Egypt.

There are two main characteristics God attributes to and evil heart. It is "deceitful" and "desperately wicked".

(Hosea 2:10-11) Being deceitful is like a magician who uses misdirection to take one’s focus off of one thing where all the action is occurring. In this regard, The Sabbath is the distraction to shift your focus off of what the evil heart is doing – evil, taking undue advantage of others, all the while giving an air uprightness and piety by keeping the Sabbath (and new moons). It is cloaking one’s evil and evil heart with the Sabbath.

And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of mine hand. I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

If you examine the context here, God is stripping everything away from Israel that He provided, due to her evil lewdness. The holy days wherein Israel celebrated their position in relation to God is to be no more. He is going to take away these things, including the Sabbath. It will be no more.

It is a concept anathema to Adventists and other Sabbatarian sister organizations, for they have equated the Sabbath as something that cannot pass away, any more than can marriage; claiming both were established at the same time at Creation. Yet, here we are… God stripped away the Sabbath and other sacred observances, unmasking and removing the cloaks they used to disguise their evil hearts with their feigned “obedience” to those things.

(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.

Man looks and judges according to the outward appearance, in this case people keeping the Sabbath, while ignoring the heart and behaviors; the evils that emanate from it.

This reveals the magician’s tricks; his MO or “method of operation” whereby he deceives and distracts, using the Sabbath. Look to his “obedience” and not his heart; his deceitful and desperately wicked heart where he readily ignores and rejects what even God has to say on the Subject.

By removing the veil used to cover the wicked heart, the heart is exposed for what it is, and what it does in defense of its evil, wicked, deceitful nature. It is a deceitful heart that ultimately deceives the self. The Sabbath, as well as the rest of the law, is but a cover; an alibi; an excuse. “I keep the law (Decalogue), I keep a version of the Sabbath; pay no attention or heed to the inner man hiding behind this curtain of the law and Sabbath. Pay no attention to the heart – look only to the outward appearance of keeping the law and Sabbath and my obedience to God.”

They persecute those who do not conform to their imagery of Sabbath keeping; those whose righteousness is derived through the Spirit and not physical rites and rituals. People who do not match the description of those referenced to in Amos chapter 8, cited above; Sabbath keepers who are impatient for the Sabbath to end so they can go back to work, cheating others, practicing their evils; sating their evil hearts and desires, where the Sabbath is just a means to an end; look good on the outside, so as to further disarm those they deal with by giving off an aura of legitimacy through religious conviction in relation to the works of the law.

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Law and/or Holy Spirit?

If you haven’t noticed, there’s an issue with the Holy Spirit that warrants closer examination.

(Matthew 12:31-32) Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

(Acts 7:51) Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Blasphemy is speaking against God and what He stands for and represents; a misrepresentation of God. In the case of the Holy Spirit, it is speaking out against the function He serves in the life of people, denying the Holy Spirit; resisting Him.

Note that over the course of time following the Apostolic era, there was quite a debate about the concept of the Trinity; the triune nature of God. The debates are somewhat classical, as this too is a debate that skirts the real issue that is at the core of the debate, and that is the nature of the Holy Spirit in relation to, and in contrast to the Father and the Son. Does the Holy Spirit possess “person-hood” or is the Holy Spirit merely the “force” or “power” of God when it is manifested?

If the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force / power of God, then how can you possibly blaspheme an emanated power?

My observation is that those who deny the Trinity “doctrine” have no clue as to what the real debate is all about. The classic argument I have heard is that a triune God constitutes pantheism, but a “dual” God does not… No one seems to have a problem with a God made up of the Father and Son, but that is as far as they will go.

An examination then of the function of the Holy Spirit is in order.

(John 16:13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The Holy Spirit “of truth” guides the believer in all truth. He is the means whereby God dwells with man; those who repented and believed the truth; the Gospel of our savlvation.

(Ephesians 1:13) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise

So why the dire warning regarding the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Why did the Sanhedrin “resist” the Holy Spirit, going back to the times of the Prophets?

The Prophets spoke for God, who communicated to them through the Holy Spirit. The Sanhedrin, made up of Pharisees, were the ‘competition’ to the Holy Spirit as to who would influence the people. They are the same ones who “hated Jesus without a (just) cause” as well as the Father in Heaven. Like their father the devil, they wanted to hold sway over the people; have the people follow them and what they taught. They taught the law and that obedience to them was obedience to the law, and by extension, obedience to God.

Ever wonder how it was that the devil could sway a third of the angelic host to “fall” away from God? Through the abuse of position within the order ordained by God in Heaven. All this follows the pattern of typology regarding how Israel was given the law, and how those tasked with administering the law became corrupt, using the law as the means to rule over the people, while convincing them they were God’s true representatives on earth. To follow them was to follow the law and follow God.

The Holy Spirit then was their competition, and in order to maintain their power and control over the people, they sought to eliminate the competition, denying the Prophets, persecuting and killing them, and lastly the Son Himself; the heir who came to the land of His possession.

(Matthew 21:33-39) Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

They, at first, did not realize Jesus was talking about them.

The Holy Spirit guides the believer into all truth. He is the direct competition to the function of the law that was to guide the Hebrews until the faith to be delivered, and by extension, those tasked with administering the law. With people being led by the Holy Spirit, they were ‘out of a job.’

A false prophet today acquires his or her sustenance and status through the false religion they proffer, and the law serves well as a medium for doing so, following the pattern of the Pharisees and Sanhedrin; those Jesus referred to as evil children of the devil, doing the will of their Father, who sought a following by elevating his position; his “throne” to be on par with God in Heaven. (Isaiah 14:12-14)

The Holy Spirit is in direct competition with the law and those who administer it; wield it. They have to diminish the Holy Spirit; denigrate the Holy Spirit; blaspheme the Holy Spirit in order to maintain their control through the use of the law so that it is the law that is seen as what guides the people; not the Holy Spirit with the false prophets now pointing to the law, and stating it is “God’s law” they should be following, or being led by, that happens to benefit them, personally.

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

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

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

Condemnation by Law or Unbelief?

Jesus said good works were lawful on the Sabbath, as contrasted to evil works. He gave no further elaboration regarding the nature of good and evil works beyond a comparison of the two in regards to saving life versus destroying it.

Nothing Jesus did had anything to do with the destruction of life. He stated He came to give life abundantly and to save life, and His works all had this in mind.

(John 12:47) And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

His Gospel message then was a message of life.

(John 11:25-26) Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

(John 3:14-21) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Jesus is that Light, and evil-hearted ones do not come to the Light. They do not acknowledge the Light. So they are the ones who produce false gospels based on other things besides the Light; other than Jesus. Their gospels will declare other things you must believe in order to be saved; in order to acquire eternal, everlasting life.

What do evil people do that results in their condemnation: break the law and Sabbath of Israel, or refuse to come to Christ Jesus for salvation?

To “do truth” is to come to the Light – Jesus. And the deeds, the works, of those who come to Him are made known (manifest) that they are wrought in God. Not some of their works; all of their works. Good trees, who now produce only good fruits unto God to the Glory of God.

The evil ones in this scenario produce their own gospel of salvation that substitutes faith and belief in Christ Jesus alone with other “requirements.”

Examine the rationalization put forth by Adventists. “Grace is not a license to sin, and sin is what happens when you transgress the law, and if you sin by transgressing “God’s law” you cannot be saved.”

They will cite, in support of their argument:

(1 Corinthians 6:9-10) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

(Galatians 5:19-21) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Murder, for example, is addressed in the law as a sin; a transgression of the law. Therefore, doing any of these things transgresses the law in some fashion, resulting in your exclusion from the kingdom of God / Heaven where those who receive eternal, everlasting life reside.

Now, if you were paying attention, transgressing the law was not stated by Jesus as that which results in condemnation. He specifically stated rejecting Him was the cause of condemnation, not breaking / transgressing the law. Evil people are those who do not respond to, or come to, the “Truth”, which is Jesus Christ. They are evil, and according to the teachings of Jesus, the works of evil people are only evil and sin, even as the works of good people, those who “come to the Light”, are all good works.

God does NOT judge mankind like mankind does. God declared He judges according to the heart. Evil people have evil hearts, and because they have evil hearts, thoughts, intents, they act according to that heart, doing evil things. One evil thing being the refusal to come to the Light, Christ Jesus, so that they might have life eternal.

Evil people, who embrace a religion of law - works of law, righteousness by law, justification by law -such as the law that was given to the Hebrews, use the law in an attempt to build a foundation of religion that gives them the means of “looking good” as a result of keeping it, even as did the Pharisees and other religious elite that Jesus referred to as evil children of the devil, who were doing the will of their father the devil.

Let that sink in. The people who were being addressed by the Prophets, the Hebrews, were told that their hearts were deceitful and desperately wicked.

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

God knew it. Those religious elite could not, being deceived by their own hearts.

(Psalms 109:2) For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.

Those versed in what all transpired between Jesus and the Pharisees, et alia, know this to be a prophesy in relation to Christ Jesus. Who spoke against Jesus? Who spoke lies about Him?

The religious elite.
Those who claimed to be religious and doing the will of God, through the law they believed they kept. They hated Him, hated Jesus, because they were evil, and evil ones do not come to the Light. They are the ones who seek to destroy life; not save it. They sought to destroy the Author of Life itself.

Was their undoing by the law, or by their unbelief?

I will leave you, the reader, with this last thought…
Which religious organization - that claims to be the true church, and claims to love "the law, the Ten Commandments" - is the one that has built hospitals around the world, conducting the destruction of life in their hospitals through elective abortions, where they destroy on a routine basis the most innocent of all lives, with absolutely no just hearing or appeal by anyone on their behalf as was required in the law they claim to keep?

(Exodus 20:7) You shall not murder.

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

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

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

LAW LAW LAW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But but but… it’s GOD’S LAW!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Editing The Commandments

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

WHO ARE YOU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please pay very close attention to three key things here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's take this one step farther.

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

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

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

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

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

COVENANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT TO DO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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