The Law Is Written On Our Hearts - Part I

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

---

(JER. 31: 33) But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

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

God said He would write the law on Israel's hearts and cause them to keep it. So, the natural question is - what does that mean? Some say it can only mean we must keep the Old Covenant law and go to church on Saturday. They say, "The issue of the New Covenant is not the removal of God's law but its internalization," and, "The New Covenant promise is not that God's law would be discarded." Others disagree. They say the Old Covenant is gone. But how can those who disagree claim the law is removed when it is supposed to be written on hearts and kept?
It's a reasonable question. We need to find a reasonable answer.

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

Clearly, they cannot both be correct. Which of these is the New Covenant way?

I am not going to get deep in scripture and such today. I want to start by digging in to opinion #1 so we can see clearly how opinion #1 actually works. I think this is important.

THE WHOLE LAW?

First things first, we have to deal with a genuine problem affecting opinion 1: of all those who say the law is written on our hearts, practically no one thinks the whole law remains as written.

So many people make claims like, "The new covenant is still the same God's laws, only that they are written upon the tables of hearts of the true believers." That is a direct quote, copied and pasted. But is it correct? For all the times I see this kind of comment, I have yet to see anyone who really believes the law in the New Covenant is the same as the Old. Nevertheless, I see this kind of comment frequently.

If you are going to base your entire religious outlook on the claim that the law is eternal, from Genesis to Revelation, then you might want to consider living by that claim.       No one does.

I've asked many people if they keep all 613 laws, and the very first thing they do is start to explain how that isn't required.
There is one good point to mention. Some said to me, "Even Jesus didn't keep all 613. How could He keep the laws about the Kohanim and Levites?"
Believe it or not, I think this is a fair point. Let's grant it. Not even Jesus kept all 613 because not all 613 applied to every Jewish person. Quite true! But...
That does nothing to change the fact that the whole law was there. And if the law is the same, as is frequently claimed, then those laws are still there.

But more importantly for us now, all the whole law was in place when Jeremiah and Ezekiel wrote what they did. To the Prophets, "the law" is the whole body of law. But to modern Sabbatarians, that is not what "the law" means.

My usual response to this "we don't have to keep all 613 laws" point is to ask, "So, how many would you say you do keep, then?"
I have yet to get a response to this question.

What happened to "do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets" and "not one jot or one tittle" (MAT. 5: 17-18)? What happened to Romans 3: 31? What happened to all the other proof texts and common legalist arguments that I've used and that have been used to me to claim the law is still in effect? Gone.
In my last post, "Lawlessness and I John 3" we discussed how the Pharisees are accused of lawlessness for adding to the law, which takes away from the law. Here, people literally take away from the law, and they call that "keeping the law". How?

In other words, one thing is being said and another thing entirely is meant. It's a bait and switch.
I was specifically told, "The New Covenant promise is not that God's law would be discarded." No? Then why is that exactly what I see happening? And they do this even as they say, "God's law is eternal" (is it?) - and sing "O How Love I Thy Law" (do you?).

The exact number 613 was never the point. It merely helps to show how "the law" is not the same today as it was. The laws being "kept" are not the ones Jeremiah and Ezekiel knew. Far from it.

Vast swaths of law have been removed. Barely 3% remains. How can this be "the law"?

BITE-SIZED PORTIONS

So, "the law" is not the whole law. Then what is it? The definition changes from group to group. In some cases, it's the Ten Commandments only. Others add tithes and sometimes meats laws. Still others add holy days. Herbert Armstrong had his preaching credentials revoked by the COG7 for teaching more law than they thought was necessary. No two Sabbatarian groups seem to agree. This is no small thing!

Yet, they all have separated the law into three chunks: moral, ceremonial, and national. Not because the Bible makes these categories, mind you. It does not; they are entirely theological. Then, they've tossed out 2 of those categories: ceremonial and national. Gone. Right off the top. But to divide them up and toss some out actually violates the law. Is DEU. 4:2 written on our hearts, too?

This was said to me just the other day:

"The law is the terms of both Covenants. What is dissolved, abolished, decays, grows old, fades away was the sacrificial system. The Levitical laws of the priesthood, animal sacrifices, because the Messiah replaced them once and for all. These works where to fade away, become the old part of the agreement, giving way to the New."

I want you to notice, one cannot say "the law is the terms of both Covenants" as they are explaining how 1/3 of the law is not the terms of both covenants.

I am confident that person did not mean to say the national laws remain, even if that is how that comment reads. What they meant was, "The law is the terms of both covenants. 2/3 of the law are not the terms of both covenants."

The two big challenges here are:
1) Can one claim they are "keeping the law" when they reject 2/3 of the law?
2) How did two categories of the law dissolve with the Covenant, but one survive?

Sabbatarians ask me, "Why would God create a law just to get rid of it?" And I ask them, "So, you keep the ceremonial law, then?" And they say to me, "The ceremonial and national law was removed and no longer apply." Then I ask them, "Why would God create a law just to get rid of it?"
(There is an answer to that, by the way. It isn't arbitrary. I talk about it in other articles.)

But here is an interesting thing to ponder - just because theologians have divided the laws up into three groups does not mean they are equally 1/3 each. Since the Bible did not create these groups, they are open to interpretation and there is no official number. But the rough guesstimate is: Ceremonial=250-350, National=200-300, Moral=50-100. Do you see how much smaller the moral category is than the other two? It isn't 2/3 of the law that is gone, it's more like 5/6. A mere 1/6 of the law is "the law".

The claim is, since the laws are moral then they must remain. But where does the Bible say that? Is it law that creates morality? Is God moral because He keeps laws? I can't even get a straight answer on what "moral law" means. Which ones are the moral laws, exactly? I ask around, but I always get answers crafted to come to the conclusion that "moral" means "the laws we need to keep". So, we need to keep the moral law and the moral law are the ones we need to keep? Nothing circular there.

And let's not forget the definition changes over time. These groups tend to claim they are the original "one true church", which survived in hidden enclaves in the French Alps or somewhere. But when we read through history, including the histories written by these very churches, none of those earlier "true church eras" kept the same list as the next. How does that work?

And this is where the conversation usually devolves into ad hominem and straw men. "You're opposing Almighty God!" No. I'm searching for the truth, and God is truth. "God is going to make a third death just for you" Perhaps I would deserve it, but not for this. "Are you saying it's OK to murder and commit adultery??" No. As if the world outside their church is entirely populated by nothing other than rapists and murderers.
I am not justifying immorality. I am merely searching for straight answers.

Therefore, I propose there are really four categories: moral, ceremonial, national, and "the ones I want other people to keep".

But dividing up the law and tossing most of it is not end of the matter. Next, the law must endure a heavy editing process.

EDITING THE LAW

So, "the law" really means "moral law". This sounds great at first. But even that is not really what's going on.

A law isn't required because it is moral, but called "moral" because it is required (by themselves).

Don't understand the difference? Let's walk through this together.

Each group has their own set of laws which they require. Each group claims their list are the "moral laws". Remember - this includes such things as annual holy days, tithes, and meats laws. Things that are clearly not moral.

The weekly Sabbath is only called moral because it is one of the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Ten are moral laws. It is moral by association. It isn't called moral for its own qualities but because it must be moral or else it's hard to get it onto the list. But let's just say for sake of argument that it does have some kind of moral component in there. That does nothing for the annual sabbaths (holy days). They are not in the Ten. No moral by association here. So, how are they on the list? And what of meats laws? One cannot say certain animals were morally unclean. And what of tithes? Tithes are not moral in any way. Ten is not the moral percentage, whereas nine is ceremonial and eleven national. One could say charity is moral, but tithes were not charity. They were required, like taxes. How are they on the list?

So, a law is not required because it has a purely moral component. Rather, a law is called "moral" because it has made it onto their particular short list.

Days and tithes and foods are by nature ceremonial, not moral. But these ceremonial laws are on the list for some groups, and therefore they are re-christened as "moral law". The law is artificially divided into categories, then the definitions of the categories are manipulated.

But it's more than that. It is not just the categories that are manipulated but the individual laws themselves. Laws are taken away from and added to on an individual basis.

How so? Let's start with taking away from the law.

Tithing is mandatory, but the tithe is done incorrectly. Tithing was never 10% (it was 1-in-10; there's a difference), it was never on cash money, it doesn't go to Levites as the law demands (that was its primary reason for tithes to exist), the second tithe is used for one holy day only (Tabernacles), and most abandon the third tithe completely. If tithing is so moral, then why not follow the tithing law?

Some groups say the holy days are mandatory, but none of the laws on how to keep the holy days are mandatory. For example, most groups which claim Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles are mandatory do not go to Jerusalem to keep them as is required. Most have never built a booth in their lives. The Feast of Firstfruits is ignored almost completely. Few blow a shofar on Trumpets. And let's not even begin to describe Atonement.

And what of new moons? Psalm 81:3 and Hosea 2:11 do appear to call the new moon a feast day. Amos 8:5 practically treats it like a sabbath. And I Samuel 20 shows it being observed. Do a word search. "New moon" and "Sabbath" and "appointed feast" appear together far more often than not. Ignored completely.

One of the biggest steps on my journey out of Armstrongism was when I asked a close friend why the law says one thing about holy days but we do another, and he responded, "Herbert Armstrong changed the law out of necessity."
OUT OF NECESSITY???
So, we get to just edit the law to make it easier to keep because it's too challenging as written and we still get to claim we're "keeping the law"? If it's that simple, what did the Pharisees do that was so bad?

So, even if a law is on the list and is called "moral", the detailed rules on how to observe that law are ignored. How can a thing be moral when the instructions on how to that thing are not moral?
As I used to say quite often, "The law! The law! ... just not THAT law."

Now, let's move on to adding to the law.

We've discussed in the past how the Sabbath is not about when you go to church. The Fourth Commandment doesn't say to "go to church". Jesus went to synagogue ...but only because that was the tradition of the Pharisees. It wasn't a law. No law in the entire Bible says to "go to church" (or synagogue). That is added onto the law.

Armstrongism has manufactured an entire annual day called "Night To Be Much Remembered" or "Night To Be Much Observed". This day comes from a misreading of Exodus 12: 42. When read properly, it turns out Passover is the night to be observed. A whole day is added while other days are ignored.

I could go on and on like this. Have you ever read the details of what Ellen G White did to the law with all her additions and clarifications? Individual laws added to and taken away from, same as what the Pharisees did. And all this while they teach the law is required as written, unchanged, and they're the best at it.

It's cheating.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to what it may appear, my point in this article is not to point fingers and accuse. This article is only meant to show how the Sabbatarian solution to "the law is written on our hearts" is far less straightforward than it first appears. Jeremiah says "the law". Sabbatarians say "the law". But are we talking about the same thing? No.

We need to be mindful of what is really going on. It's important. Because the question before us is: is opinion 1 really the solution?
How can it be?

Despite all the people who claim the fulfillment of the prophecy is in observing the law, good luck finding one who believes it is the law as Jeremiah and Ezekiel knew it.
When the appeal turns to verses like Genesis 7:1 and 26:5 in an attempt to demonstrate the law is eternal, we have to ask, is it? When the appeal turns to Isaiah 66 in an attempt to demonstrate a law in the future is a law today, we have to ask, is it? Because when we look around, we see the whole law is given lip service but it is not being practiced or even required. Instead, "the law" has become several competing abbreviated and edited lists, constructed on proof-texts, designed to uphold predetermined conclusions, with each group convinced that its own list remains in force. Does keeping a custom list of laws fulfill the prophecy?

Whatever Jeremiah does mean, I cannot agree it is this.

Jeremiah said God would write His law on the heart. He did! The question is what God has in mind by "the law." And if He did not mean a selectively edited remnant of the Old Covenant, then what exactly did he mean?
We will discuss that in the next post.

For more, I suggest:

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

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

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

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

Paul's Use Of Psalm 32 In Romans 4

          The Epistle to the Romans is Paul's literary masterpiece on the doctrine of salvation. It is the most elegant of his extant writings. The apostle begins his treatise by presenting the issue of man's depravity, the righteousness of God, and his resultant condemnation. Paul shows that both Jew and Gentile have violated God's righteous commandments, making them wholly worthy of divine condemnation. He strips away every layer of man's hubris. Everyone stands guilty before Him, without any ability to challenge that divine verdict, but with the positive side being that God has presented a means of reconciliation for us through the atoning work of Jesus Christ.

          Paul makes an argument by example when he mentions Abraham, who lived prior to the Law being given to the people of God. He does this with the intent of showing that his teaching is compatible with the Old Testament. A system of works righteousness would result in boasting, which God takes offense at. Further, Romans 4:4 says that if someone earns wages, then it is not a gift. But justification is precisely that, so any claim to self-merit must be left out of that equation. Romans 4:5 says that God declares righteous the ungodly and counts them as such on the basis faith. Thus, the one and only thing a man can do in this scenario is set aside any dependence upon himself. 

          The Law required that two or three witnesses be present to establish the validity of a charge (Deuteronomy 19:15; Numbers 35:30). We see the Apostle Paul adhering to this custom in arguing for justification before God by faith as opposed to meritorious works. He brings up Abraham and King David as examples of men who were justified without consideration of good works. The latter person is of special interest as we consider how Paul ties in Psalm 32 with his argument. The Psalm in question is one of a penitential nature. What is especially striking is that, the Law did not have any provision of atonement for the man who committed murder. Yet, God forgave David anyway. This divine act helps to lay the foundation for Paul's declaration of God declaring righteous the ungodly and retaining His status as righteous in so doing.

          The Psalm used by the Apostle Paul concerns the blessedness of being freed from the guilt of sin that comes about as a result of God forgiving it. The misdeeds King David had repented of were sending Uriah the Hittite into battle to be killed with the intent of covering up his affair with Bathsheba. One scandalous act led him to committing another, but his scheming failed utterly in the end. Further, David uses three words to describe his conduct, showcasing the richness of Hebrew vocabulary, which are guilt, wrongdoing, and sin. His act was a distortion of decency. It was crooked, not upright. It was a violation of the Law. Three words are used in Psalm 32 to describe three different aspects of breaching the divine moral standard.

          Contrariwise, David used three terms to describe God's mercy: forgiven, covered, and not being taken into account. To be "forgiven" of our sins means that God has taken them away from us. To have our sins "covered" means that their penalty has been met. That leads up to the forgiveness of our sins by God. In fact, Romans 4:7 is the only instance in which this word occurs in the New Testament. When sin is not taken into account, that means we do not merit for ourselves God's eschatological wrath. He does not treat us with the eternal fate that we deserve, just as David himself was spared physical death for his actions. Forgiveness is entirely a matter of grace, not an obligation owed to us. We are actually the ones indebted to God, and could never even begin to repay Him for our sin.

          It is worth noting that King David did not mention any good deeds done to earn God's favor. In fact, he only brought up his sin, with its gravity being enormous. He came to God with nothing, but was still forgiven for what he had done. God is said to give a righteous status to men who are ungodly, since David was very much deserving judgment and had not one thing to offer in his defense. The non-imputation of sin to a believer's account necessarily implies an upright standing before Him. Hence, David was regarded as righteous in God's sight. Walter Roehrs, in the the Concordia Self-Study Commentary, Old Testament, p. 355, writes:

          "And indeed David claims no merit or worthiness, entitling him to absolution; even his penitential tears and abject remorse do not produce anything deserving consideration. Giving all glory to God, he revels in sharing the happiness which is bestowed out of pure grace on the man to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity (1-2)."

          The Apostle Paul uses King David as an example of a man being declared righteous in spite of his sins against God. Both he and Abraham can speak to the reality of justification apart from works. Their experiences are spoken of as equivalent to each other. Romans 4:7 and Romans 4:8 emphasize our pardon from sin. The point being made in these parallel stanzas is that we are not justified by good works. David speaks of the "blessed man" who receives full pardon from sin, which implies that he believed others could experience the same. Paul here recontextualized the meaning of forgiveness as deliverance from earthly death to being set free from its punishment in the life to come. This excerpt from the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, p. 624, is relevant here:

"...In contrast with many of the rabbinic references to Ps. 32, Paul makes no mention of the confession of sins, which is a central theme of the psalms (cf. Ps. 32:5; see Str-B 3:202-3). Confession is implicitly taken up in faith for Paul, in which sin that has overpowered our person is overcome: in faith "we give glory to God" (4:20; cf. 1:23; 3:26). As was the case with the story of Abraham, the broader context of the psalm makes clear that the "reckoning of righteousness" is no mere declaration, but rather an effective word."

          Confession is faith in Jesus Christ expressed. Repentance is the recognition of the need of redemption from sin and its penalty, involving a change of mind and heart. These things are closely associated with salvation and cannot be separated from it. The New Testament never takes into consideration the idea of a Christian either failing to do one or both. Confession and repentance are assumed of believers without exception. They are lived expressions of faith that acknowledge the gravity of sin and entrust themselves completely to the grace of 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

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

Lawlessness and I John 3

You may have heard, "Sin is the transgression of the law." A favorite Sabbatarian proof-text. You may have also heard "lawlessness" means being without the Old Covenant law". If so, the Pharisees should have been the least lawless people in Israel. Yet Jesus accused them of lawlessness. There is more to lawlessness than the law.

---

In my last post, "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", I wrote about how "keep My commandments" did not refer to the Ten Commandments. We learned what "commandments" means. Today, I want to discuss another proof text for law-keeping: I John 3: 4. Let's see what "lawlessness" means.

The Bible was not written in KJV English

When I was a Sabbatarian, I took the word "lawlessness" to mean "being without the law". The Old Covenant law, that is. I mean, just look at the word: law-less. Even the Greek word anomos (ἄνομος) literally translates to "without law". Can it get plainer than that? Mainstream Christians claim they are under grace rather than law, but isn't that the very definition of 'lawlessness' which Jesus and the Apostles spoke out against? 

I understand how easy it is to come to this conclusion, but the conclusion is not built on a careful examination of the concept of lawlessness. It's built on what I just said, the word itself. Granted it is an obvious conclusion, but is it the right conclusion? For example, are you reckless only when you don't have any reck?

If anyone was ever in favor of the Old Covenant law, it was the Pharisees. If we are going to take this word on face value, then Jesus accused the most law-oriented people in Israel of being the ones who possessed the least law. 
They had the full law yet did not have the law? How does that work?

This is not lost on Sabbatarians. We simply concluded they had too much law. The Pharisees added to it, and that was just as bad as taking away from it (DEU. 4: 2).
But doesn't having too much law break the definition of "being without the law"? Too much law is the opposite of no law.

As a Sabbatarian, I would have responded that the Pharisees were nullifying the law with their traditions (MAT. 15: 6). They were using traditions and interpretations to remove God's intent for the law. They were spiritually lawless.

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. Do you see how the argument is subtly moving away from "without Torah" towards something much deeper?

My point in this back and forth is to demonstrate that even those who define lawlessness as 'not having the Old Covenant law' know it is not so simple.

How does this all tie together? What is lawlessness? How can those who are the most focused on the law be lawless? Is sin defined as breaking the Old Covenant law? What does any of this have to do with Christians in the New Covenant? And are grace-based Christians guilty of the same offense as the Pharisees?

Today's article is going to rely on you having read the Road to Sabbatarianism series. If you read that series, you will be much better prepared to understand some concepts in this article.

Let's start with the prime proof-text of this view.

KJV ONLY

In Sabbatarian theology, few verses are more foundational than this one: 

(I JON. 3: 4) [KJV] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Not just this verse, but the King James Version rendering of this verse, specifically. The conclusion we are supposed to reach is, "If the definition of sin is to violate the law, then don't violate the law!" It overrides practically any discussion on how Covenants work.

But here's the thing - that's not what the verse actually says.

hē [the] hamartia [sin] estin [is] hē [the] anomia [lawlessness]

Sin is lawlessness.

Don't understand the difference? Let's walk through this together.

The KJV translators rendered the single Greek word anomia (ἀνομία) as “transgression of the law.” But “transgression of the law” is not in the Greek text. Perhaps you could translate anomia simply as “transgression” or “lawlessness,” but not both.
“Transgression of the law” worked reasonably well 500 years ago, when English usage was broader and less technical than it is today. But in modern English, the phrase sounds far more specific and legalistic than the Greek word anomia supports. 

The translators of the NKJV tried to preserve the language and feel of the KJV wherever possible. Their decision to render anomia as ‘lawlessness’ here instead of ‘transgression of the law’ is telling.

With that correction in wording should come a correction in understanding. I propose John is not defining sin as literally "lacking the Old Covenant law". Rather, he is using anomia to reveal what sin is at heart (pun intended). John is adding gravity to sin.

In order to understand why John thinks lawlessness is such a terrible thing to be accused of, we need to understand what lawlessness meant to him in the first place. Let's see some examples of how the underlying Greek words were used in the Apostles' time and place.

SEPTUAGINT AND BEYOND

I don’t want to get buried in a lesson on the Greek language. Just know there are several words in play here, such as anomos (lawless; adjective), anomia (lawlessness; noun), and anomōs (lawlessly; adverb) along with their various forms. These are a family of words built around the same basic idea.

This word family appears several times in the the Septuagint; the Greek Old Testament. We know the Apostles read the Septuagint because they often quote it. Let's see a few examples.

(PSA. 32: 1) Blessed are they whose transgressions [anomiai] are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

(PSA. 51: 2) Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity [anomias], and cleanse me from my sin.

(ISA. 53: 5) But he was wounded on account of our transgressions, and was bruised because of our iniquities [anomiai]: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; by his bruises we were healed.

Clearly, these do not indicate Old Covenant law was missing. Was King David without Torah? Was Messiah bruised because no one had Torah? How can "being without Torah" be plural? "Being without Torahs"?

If you scan every instance of this word family in the Septuagint, then check how translators render those into English, you get a list with words like: iniquity, transgression, wickedness, unrighteousness, lawlessness. The idea isn't an absence or imbalance in Old Covenant law, but moral corruption and rebellion against God.

But the Septuagint wasn't the only Greek resource we can check. When we investigate how these words were used in the Qumran community (think Dead Sea Scrolls), or by Josephus, or in the wider Greek world, we find such things as: violation of social order, covenant betrayal, impurity, wickedness, disorder, spiritual corruption, opposition to God's will, rebellion.

To put that into an easy-to-digest visual:

Septuagint (moral) → transgression, iniquity, wickedness, rebellion

Qumran (covenantal) → covenant betrayal, impurity, corruption, rebellion

Josephus (historical/political) → wickedness, disorder, rebellion

Wider Greek usage (social/civic) → disorder, social chaos, impiety, rebellion

This shows us what a broad range of meanings these words had. The idea is nowhere near as simple as "without law" let alone "without Old Covenant law".

Now, notice something strange in Matthew:

(MAT. 7: 23) And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness (anomia)!’

A popular verse. You've probably read it a thousand times. But, practice lawlessness? How odd. Jesus says much the same in MAT. 13:41. Which definition of lawlessness makes more sense here?
A) Practice "without the law"
or
B) practice [the words listed above]

I'm going with B!

Consider how odd it is to accuse someone of actively doing "without the law". As if "without the law" is something you can do. Using a noun like an action is not unusual. People "commit murder" or "show mercy". But how does one commit "no law"? It's like saying, "I'm going to insufficient funds tonight." It makes no sense.

But practicing wickedness or corruption or iniquity makes complete sense.

Given this, it is not advisable to jump to the conclusion that "lawlessness" means "being without the Old Covenant law." Taking the word at face value actually misses the point.

Let's compare these two very different definitions of lawless to see which works better for the Pharisees.

ALLIES IN OPEN REBELLION

Jesus did not accuse everyone of lawlessness. Jesus criticized the Sadducees sure enough, but He never directly accused them of lawlessness. Strangely, He never directly accused the Romans of lawlessness. They seem to be the most deserving.

What was Jesus accusing the Pharisees of, then? Consider the definitions in the previous section. They were rebellious.

Hypocritical. Vain. Argumentative. Accusers. Political. Scheming. Entrapping. Fastidious about the law, but completely missing the point. Claiming they were God's people, but could not recognize Him. Using the law as a weapon to set themselves up and to beat others down.

Lawlessness is things like this. ↑↑↑↑

When Jesus accused the Pharisees of lawlessness, He did not single out the law as the problem, and He didn't offer them the law as the solution. See for yourself:

(MAT. 23: 28) Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

How can one be filled with "without law"? It's even more absurd than saying they were doing "without law".
But did you miss the part of how they appeared righteous? On the outside they were keeping the law. Paul felt Pharisees kept the law. He described it in Philippians 3, "a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee" [v5] ... "concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" [v6]. But many times he goes on to describe his own failures. So, they were not "without the law".
Others thought the Pharisees were righteous, because they were keeping the law. The lawlessness was inside ...of their hearts. God knew.

(MAT. 15: 8) These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.

I think we've fairly well established the meaning of lawlessness. Now, let's circle back again to I John 3.

LAWLESS AT HEART

(I JON. 3: 4) [NKJV] Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

Notice John says “also”: “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness.” They are separate in concept, but inseparable in practice. All sin falls under the umbrella of lawlessness. Lawlessness is all those terrible things we saw above, and sin is a manifestation of it. What I am driving at here is: sin is a symptom of something wrong inside. Something that law-keeping in and of itself cannot fix.
Did John write this to a Christian in order to emphasize the law? No. He did it to emphasize the gravity of sin!

So, we have to ask, is being 'under grace not law' the very definition of 'lawlessness' which Jesus and the Apostles spoke out against? No.

But it can be! ...if we don't take sin seriously.

We are in danger of developing the attitude that since we are under grace we can behave any way we wish and we'll just be forgiven. There are moral requirements in Christianity. In the age of grace, sin is still sinful. In the age of the New Covenant, covenant betrayal is still possible. As a good friend of mine said, "Sin is acting like you don't have any obligation to anybody but your own needs and wants." Jesus didn't only come to save you, He came so He could send the Holy Spirit to transform you. John's point is much the same message as Paul's from Romans 6. Discipleship means to become like the Teacher. If you're not becoming like the Teacher, then what are you doing?

So, what of the law? I know someone out there is still thinking the law is the medicine for sin. It's not. The Holy Spirit is.

In "The Road to Sabbatarianism - part III", we saw how both sin and righteousness can exist apart from the law. Sin is any violation of God's nature. The law was neither the ultimate source of nor the solution for sin. All of those first-century Jews who rejected their Messiah had the Mosaic law. How'd that go?
The Pharisees had the law, and everyone thought they were righteous (except the One who knows the heart). This tells us the law can either reveal the issue or it can be used to mask the issue. Because law-keeping relies on the heart, one thing it cannot do is remove the issue. If it could, then Jesus died in vain (GAL. 2: 21).
In the New Covenant, sin is not about the Old Covenant law. New covenant, new terms. And the righteousness God wants does not come from law-keeping, but from His own righteousness being credited to us by faith. 
None of this is about the old law. John never wrote "sin is the transgression of the law". The word "lawlessness" is not about the Torah. It certainly isn't about trying to find the proper balance of Torah. All of this is about the heart. It's about God and our relationship with Him.

John 3:4 may not point to the Old Covenant law, but John also does not leave us with the idea that grace means having no rules whatsoever.

(I JON. 3: 23) And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

As we saw in "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", John's antidote to sin and lawlessness is a life defined by faith and love. If you are following the Holy Spirit, would you be lawless?

CONCLUSION

Does the Bible define sin as "the transgression of the law"? No. John never wrote that.
Remember, the meme at the start of this article says, 'It's not what you think sin is, it's what does scripture say sin is.' Well, scripture doesn't say that.
John wrote, “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness”

Lawlessness is not best understood as 'being without the Old Covenant law', or 'being with too much Old Covenant law', or even 'not Sabbathing properly'. That is not what it meant in the original Greek. If it were, then Sabbatarians - who only keep about 2-3% of the law - are far more lawless than the Pharisees.
The obvious reading is misleading.

As the back and forth at the start of this post shows, even those who redefine lawlessness as "lacking Torah" eventually run into this same conclusion that I am making now - there is much more to lawlessness than meets the eye.
It isn't that one is literally without laws, but that one is figuratively without them. Spiritually without controls and boundaries. That's why you can have the law yet still be lawless (and not just the Pharisees, because we see "lawlessness" throughout the Old Testament). Lawlessness is a problem of the heart. It is about betraying the Covenant that you are in. It is a rebellion against the God we claim to follow. In effect, it is a rejection of Him.

It is lovelessness, faithlessness, hypocrisy, injustice, symbol over substance, and corruption hiding beneath outward religiosity.

It is going through the motions. It is being spiritually off course without correcting it. It's comparing ourselves to others and pointing the finger at them. It is accusing our neighbor rather than helping them. It is mouthing Jesus is your Lord, yet behaving like anything but. It is a mask of righteousness. It is claiming you keep the law when you you've missed the point. If even Satan himself can appear as an angel of light, then we humans can use law and grace to lie about our spiritual condition, too.

That is why lawlessness is such a serious accusation. John was not putting us all under the law. Rather, John was packing all the terrible meanings above into one word (lawlessness) and applying it to sin to expose what sin really is. And sin is but a symptom, a symptom of this internal problem.

The law cannot fix this. Never could. Law can only expose it ...or hide it.

I have always admired the way Armstrongism recognized there is more to the Christian walk than merely "being forgiven". There is a genuine emphasis on personal responsibility and the danger of becoming spiritually complacent. I may fundamentally disagree that this responsibility means keeping [3% of] the Old Covenant law, but I agree Christians should prayerfully consider their loyalty to the New Covenant in how they live. I believe that is what John was trying to express in his epistle.

Sin is lawlessness, and lawlessness is serious.

Here are some posts to help you move forward:

Sin Is The Transgression of The Law?
Antinomianism and Motivation of Heart
Two Trees - Two Covenants
Gardening With God, or Growing Spiritual Fruit
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
Law of Moses, Law of God

This post is somewhat of a loose series with the following articles:

Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66
The Sabbath Rest of John 14

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

The Sabbath Rest of John 14

Does the English word "commandments" refer to the Ten Commandments only? Does loving Jesus equal going to church on Saturday? The Greek and Hebrew reveal much.

---

If you love Me, mistranslate the Greek.

In my last post, "The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66", I wrote, "Of the several challenges for Sabbatarianism, one of the biggest is the fact that the weekly Sabbath is never commanded in the New Covenant". The usual response to this is: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (JON. 14:15).
The claim here is that the word "commandments" refers to the Ten Commandments, and thus the Sabbath commandment is there but hidden. Hence the title for today's post.

Today, we purposefully ask, which commandments? Do the original languages tell us all Christians must keep the Ten Commandments, or are we seeing the English word "commandments" and then jumping to conclusions?

And here are the stakes for the claim. We have but three choices:
1) The underlying Greek refers to the Ten Commandments exclusively, and we can jump to this conclusion,
But if it does not, then either:
2) It refers to all commands, and we must keep all 613 Old Covenant laws,
or
3) It refers to something completely other than the Old Covenant law-keeping.

Let's find out which one of these we end up with.

ENGLISH IS A HARD LANGUAGE

The Bible was not originally written in English. To get from "commandments" (lower case c) to "Commandments" (upper case C), first we have to translate one Greek word and one Hebrew phrase into English. Then, once they are in English, the two are connected. But do they connect without English? Let's test that.

First, the Greek word.

entolē (ἐντολή), a command

The Greek word translated into "commandments" is entolē (ἐντολή), which means authoritative instructions, commands, or precepts. It appears 71 times in the New Testament in various forms and declensions.
Entolē is a root word. I am going to refer to all the forms simply as entolē. Makes it easier on me.

Notice how Ten Commandments is not listed in that definition. That's because it's a broad word. Let's see some examples of how entolē can be any command at all.

In John 10:18, Jesus says He received an entolē from the Father to lay down His life and take it back up again. In John 12: 49-50, Jesus says He received an entolē from the Father regarding what to say and do. The Ten aren't even the greatest entolē (MAT. 22: 35-40). In Matthew 5: 19, a very popular verse, Jesus spoke of even the least entolē. In Hebrews 9: 19, entolē refers to the whole law. And in Hebrews 7: 18, the author said the entolē was annulled.
If we cannot jump to Ten Commandments in these examples, then we shouldn't anywhere.

It can mean the Ten Commandments, no doubt. I am not claiming entolē cannot mean the Ten. It can. But it is a broad word and can mean much more than that. The vast majority of the time, it does not refer to the Ten.
In only 6 out of 71 instances does it clearly refer to the Ten (MAT. 19:17-19; MAR. 10:19; LUK. 18:20; ROM. 7:8; 13:9; & EPH. 6:2). Three of those are synoptic duplicates (three verses speak of the same thing). That means entolē clearly refers to the Ten Commandments in a grand total of four unique times out of 71. If entolē only refers to the Ten Commandments 5% of the time, we cannot see "commands" and jump to the conclusion it refers to the Ten Commandments. 95% of the time, that will be the wrong conclusion.

In each of those cases, we can only know it refers to the Ten because there are contextual clues nearby. In other words, entolē doesn't mean "Ten Commandments" all by itself. To find out if it's referring to the Ten, we have to look around for context. This fact complicates the effort to use verses like John 14:15 as a proof text for Sabbath-keeping.

In order for "keep My entolē" to refer to the Ten Commandments, we either need entolē to always refer to the Ten, which it does not, or we need some other clue close by in the text to prove entolē is narrowed down to the Ten specifically, but there is nothing like this in John 14.
There are context clues close by to John 14, but they aren't for the Ten. We will see that later.

What have we learned? The word entolē does not refer exclusively to the Ten Commandments.
Therefore, turning 'If you love Me, keep My commandments' into a command to keep the seventh-day Sabbath is reading ideas into the text rather than pulling them out of it. In short, it's eisegesis.

Now, the Hebrew phrase.

Aseret ha-D'varim (עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים), Ten Sayings

The Hebrew phrase Aseret ha-D'varim (עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים) is the phrase translated as Ten Commandments. But here is a bit of trivia for you - "Ten Commandments" is somewhat of a mistranslation. The Ten were not named "commandments" in Hebrew. They are divine commands, but that's not their name. I will quote Judaism 101:

"In the Torah, these words are never referred to as the Ten Commandments. In the Torah, they are called Aseret ha-D'varim (Ex. 34:28, Deut. 4:13 and Deut. 10:4). In rabbinical texts, they are referred to as Aseret ha-Dibrot. The words d'varim and dibrot come from the Hebrew root Dalet-Beit-Reish, meaning word, speak or thing; thus, the phrase is accurately translated as the Ten Sayings, the Ten Statements, the Ten Declarations, the Ten Words or even the Ten Things, but not as the Ten Commandments, which would be Aseret ha-Mitzvot."
-"Aseret ha-Dibrot: The Ten Commandments", Tracery R Rich, Judaism 101. Accessed 6-2024.

In the ancient Jewish mind, these were the Ten Words (δέκα λόγοι), hence the name Decalogue. They aren't the Ten entolē. In other words, they shouldn't be Commandments in the first place.

The word entolē was not used in the translation of Aseret ha-D'varim into Greek in the Septuagint. The same remained true in the first century. If the native speakers and translators would not render Aseret ha-D'varim as ten entolē, then we should not jump to reading entolē as Aseret ha-D'varim. In other words, commandments does not mean Ten Commandments.

What have we learned? Neither entolē nor Aseret ha-D'varim should be "Commandments" in English.

To put this more plainly, the connection being made in John 14 is artificial. The idea, "if you love Me, keep My Ten Commandments," is based on a problematic understanding of the Hebrew and the Greek and the English. The word "commandments" does not get us to "Commandments" (upper case C) on its own.

Here's where we stand so far:

• Aseret ha-D'varim is not literally "Ten Commandments"
• Entolē is not used when translating Ten Commandments
• Entolē is much more than the Ten
• The English word "commandments" collapses ideas together
• We need additional evidence to connect entolē to the Ten
• In no New Testament verse is the Sabbath specifically commanded for the church
• There is more support here for keeping all 613 laws than just the Ten
• None of those 613 laws are about when to go to church

Option 1 is eliminated. Now we have to ask which of the other two options is the best fit? 

OPTION 2: ALL THE LAWS

As a reminder, the choices were:

2) We must keep all 613 Old Covenant laws, or
3) This isn't about the Old Covenant law.

We all know there aren't just 10 laws, there are 613 laws. But here's the thing - no one keeps all 613. I'm not talking about trying and failing. I mean no one even tries to keep "the law". Because it's not possible at this time. Yet that is exactly the requirement we get when we use John 14 to bind people to Old Covenant law but then fail to prove entolē means the Ten only. "Keep my commandments" becomes "keep ALL that I have commanded."

And so there is a sleight of hand going on here. "The law" is being redefined as just the Ten. Seventh Day Adventists frequently say, "The Law (The Ten Commandments)." This way, some can claim to be law-keepers while not keeping the law, and while accusing their neighbor of breaking the very law they themselves do not keep. Hey! Isn't that what the Pharisees were doing - using interpretations to remove the law?
But we've already seen why Ten Commandments cannot work here, and we've eliminated that option.

By what logic can someone claim ongoing covenant obligation to “the law” while simultaneously treating most of that law as if it doesn't exist? If you're not keeping all the law, then you're not keeping the law at all.

I've written more times than I can count on how covenants work and why there is zero chance all 613 Old Covenant laws are still in effect as written. (For more, I suggest reading "Confusing the Covenants". Or, just read Hebrews 7:12.) I will not go on about that yet again here. Suffice it to say, option 2 is eliminated.

Someone might say to me, "If it cannot be all 613, then it must be narrowed to the Ten on its own." But that does not follow. This relies on the Ten being the only option left. They are not.

OPTION 3: THE CHRIST EVENT

Through the process of elimination, we know what "keep my commandments" does not mean. But we haven't seen what it does mean. We need to ask how did the author intend it to be understood. 

As for Matthew 19: 17, the Ten are clearly in view. Not because we assume what "commandments" means, but because of additional evidence close by. But that was a private conversation between Jesus and the rich man, during the Old Covenant period, there is no command for the New Covenant here (especially not the Gentiles), and the rich man still went away disappointed. If anything, this demonstrates the Ten are not sufficient. (For more, read "Who Requires What For Salvation?".)

As for I Corinthians 7: 17-24, there is nothing to indicate Paul was talking about the Ten, but he could not be talking about the whole law since he said circumcision is nothing. Rather, he seems to be saying something I've said here many times: Jews do not need to become Gentiles to be Christians, and Gentiles do not need to become Jews to be Christians. That is hardly a pro-legalist position.

As for John, if we don't ask John what he means, then why bother reading John at all? John straight out tells us what he means by entolē.

(I JON. 3:11,23) 11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. ... 23 And this is his command (entolē): to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded (entolē) us.

(II JON. 1:6) And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands (entolē). As you have heard from the beginning, his command (entolē) is that you walk in love.

And where did John get this idea?

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

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

He got it right from Jesus.

Lo and behold, John 14 is sandwiched right between these last two selections. How should we best understand John 14? In the light of John 13 and 15, of course. They aren't evidence that entolē always means the Ten Commandments, that's for sure. Love and faith. Those are the entolē in John's mind. 

Even more than this, if you walk in love you fulfill the spirit of the whole law (ROM. 13: 8-10; GAL. 5: 6,14; JAS. 2: 8).
(For an even better list, read "The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4".)

CONCLUSION

Does this article tell you not to obey God? In no way! This article merely challenges the claim that the Old Covenant laws are what God wants Christians to obey. We started with a simple question: which commandments? We have seen how we cannot just assume Ten Commandments. That doesn't work in Greek or Hebrew and therefore doesn't work in English. And it's not all 613 laws either. It must be something else entirely. Jesus tells us exactly what. So, when John 14:15 says “keep My commandments,” it is not pointing us back to Sinai as a legal system. It is pointing us to Christ as the fulfillment of it. 

In the New Covenant, the commandments are faith and love. That is what "keep my commandments" means. That is what this article tells you to obey.

The Sabbath commandment is not hiding in John 14:15. The passage never mentions the weekly Sabbath, fails to narrow entolē to the Ten Commandments, and does nothing to bind Gentile Christians to the Old Covenant. That entire conclusion must first be imported into the text before it can be read out of it.
What was the definition of eisegesis again? Oh yes, "the process of interpreting a text by imposing one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into it, rather than drawing meaning from the text itself."

That leaves the question as it actually stands: Are we reading John the way John defines himself, or are we importing meanings he never puts there?
Once John is allowed to speak for himself, the answer to “which commandments?” is already on the page. The commandments are faith and love.

To help you move forward, I recommend the following articles:

"Who Requires What For Salvation?"
"The Covenant and The Testimony"
"Are The Ten Commandments Removed?"

Other articles in this series:
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2

 

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

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

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

An Exegetical Study Of Habakkuk 2:4 As It Relates To Paul's Doctrine Of Justification By Faith

          The Book of Habakkuk is a classic example of what we would call a theodicy. It serves as a defense of the goodness of God in the midst of evil. A theodicy aims to solve the paradox of His general providence in a world of pain and misery. How could an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God allow us to go through bad things? Why do evil people seem to prosper while the righteous suffer, being continually trampled on? Why is perfect justice not always inflicted on evildoers in this world? Questions of this nature undoubtedly plagued the mind of Habakkuk. Countless people throughout history have pondered and debated at length about such issues. Habakkuk was troubled deeply by the corrupt society in which he lived. The laws of the prophet's own nation were not being enforced. Justice was nowhere to be found in the land. Rebellion toward God abounded. Habakkuk wondered how a righteous God could be silent and allow these things to come to pass. Why does He stand by and do nothing? The prophet raised such questions not in a state of doubt, but faith. While God did not specifically answer the why behind that man's questions, the response given aroused a greater sense of perplexity than he originally had. How could a righteous God use Babylon, a nation more wicked than Judah itself, as an instrument of divine judgment?

          The underlying theme of the Book of Habakkuk is that we can place our trust in God because of His sovereignty. This sovereignty is not merely a distant, impersonal force, but an active, personal involvement in the lives of those who love Him. God is working things out for the good of those who love Him, directing events in ways that we may not immediately understand but are always under His divine control. Whether things seem impossible to us is irrelevant to God. His omnipotence transcends human limitations and comprehension. He will right the wrongs of evildoers in His own perfect timing. That means justice, although delayed in our eyes, is inevitable under His watchful gaze. His plan, while it may seem convoluted and slow from our finite perspective, will prove satisfactory to us in the grand scheme or complete picture of all events when they are brought to a close. This assurance invites us to adopt a posture of patience and faith. Habakkuk contains a passage that is quoted twice by the Apostle Paul in the context of our justification before God, particularly Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11. The text being discussed is cited in its entirety as follows:

          "Behold, as for the impudent one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous one will live by his faith." (Habakkuk 2:4)

          Habakkuk was told by God to write down a message of the ruination of the Babylonian Empire and the restoration of Judah. The king of Babylon would fall as a result of being conceited, just as in Daniel 5 with Belshazzar. God would preserve a small remnant of Jews who were obedient to His commandments. The Babylonian army was brutal in conquest. Captured leaders were humiliated. A series of woes is pronounced on Nebuchadnezzar for his greed, covetousness, and cruelty. It is a truth that God judges people who are arrogant and presumptuous, unduly esteeming their might and capabilities (Numbers 14:44). However, it is not entirely clear who specifically is referred to as the proud in Habakkuk 2:4, whether it be Chaldean Jews, the Chaldeans themselves, or both. Verse 5 seems to imply that the reference is to the Chaldeans or Babylonians. The Jews certainly were not plundering other peoples at this time. The Babylonian Empire was stooped in moral corruption. It used threats and force to enrich itself monetarily (Habakkuk 2:6). Babylon pillaged and plundered other nations. It slaughtered innocent people and destroyed their homes (Habakkuk 2:8). These actions are denounced by God as being cruel. The Babylonians would pay by their own self-destruction.

          What did the Apostle Paul see in this passage that made it relevant to his teaching of justification by faith in Romans and Galatians? Did he misunderstand the words of Habakkuk? Paul sees in this passage the foundation of the message of the gospel in which man is declared righteous by God apart from the merit of good deeds. He projects the scope of the prophet's words from an ethnic group whose existence is in peril and infuses them with a new meaning that relates to our common humanity. Certainly, Habakkuk's words are broad enough to fit with his application of them. Paul, as a Jewish thinker steeped in the Hebrew Bible, resorted to theological expansion and the interpretive flexibility that was common for his era. The apostle's message could be paraphrased in this manner: "the one justified by faith shall live." He concerns himself with the reception of spiritual life. Habakkuk 2:4 is the only text besides Genesis 15:6 that brings together faith and righteousness in the Old Testament. Thus, we see the reason for Paul appealing to both passages in his argumentation against Law observance for justification before God in Romans and Galatians. A righteousness that comes by faith is antithetical to a Law righteousness.

          The Apostle Paul’s emphasis in Romans 1:17 is that the one who has been justified by faith is also called to live by faith. The righteousness believers receive is not their own but is granted by God on the basis of Christ’s atoning work. The phrase “from faith to faith” can be understood as an intensive expression that highlights faith as the sole means by which righteousness is received and life in God is sustained. Paul was a Hebrew who used expressions in the manner of that found in the Old Testament. Phrases comparable to "from faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 would include "vanity of vanities" (Ecclesiastes 1:2), "holy of holies" (Exodus 26:34), and "heaven of heavens" (Deuteronomy 10:14). Another occurrence of this form occurs when Paul described himself as "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Philippians 3:5). He interpreted the Prophet Habakkuk's words about a faithful Jewish remnant that appeared to be on the brink of utter destruction as being words of hope for lost humanity. Faith initiates the process of salvation and is its goal. God continually saves believers from the grasp of sin. The condition for Jews to receive blessings and protection from God under the Old Covenant is the same for Christians under the New Covenant: faith. A man cannot obtain a just standing before Him without it. Faith, righteousness, and life are intertwined. God's comfort and security are for all believers.

          Paul in Galatians 3:11 gives weight to Habakkuk 2:4 with the intent of making the point that one is justified in the sight of God on the basis of faith. He uses something other than the Law to make us right with Him. It is a life of faith that glorifies God. It is that kind of a life which brings honor to Him. The Apostle Paul's teaching of living by faith is to be contrasted with the Law's requirement of "doing" in order to have life (Deuteronomy 27:26; Leviticus 18:5). The latter way brings about death and is, therefore, of no avail to us in getting a righteous standing before God. Within the context of Leviticus, the decrees, statutes, and issued judicial rulings were the means of every aspect of Jewish life. They covered the physical, moral, and spiritual aspects of society. The Law brought death when violated, and the death of David and Bathsheba's son out of wedlock is an active illustration of this point. The Law points to life because it lays out the path of righteousness. However, it brings death to us because sin controls our nature. In the Greek text of Galatians 3:11, the word "by" means to be under the control or according to the nature of. We obtain a righteous standing before God by faith. We are freed from the guilt of sin by grace through faith. That is the newness of life we have in Christ.

          Hebrews 10:38 is the third and final place of the New Testament that contains a citation of Habakkuk 2:4. While the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is unknown, the text bears mentioning here because it addresses the enduring nature of faith. The context of Hebrews 10 is not justification before God, but persevering in doing the will of God. Hebrews 10 stresses the continuity that exists between one's profession of faith and faith outwardly being lived out. There is also a contrast in verse 38 between two types of people. The people whom God considers as righteous are those who long for the fulfillment of His eternal promises, which as of yet cannot be seen. They endure persecution and so secure for themselves an inheritance that cannot perish. The anonymous author in the next chapter proceeds to give examples of such people from the Old Testament who rejected worldly comfort and pleasure in favor of eternal blessings. Their focus was on the future, not there and then. All of the faithful will be richly rewarded by God in the life to come. The person who succumbs to persecution is regarded as one in whom He "takes no pleasure." He is not invested in such people or showcasing divine favor to them. That course of action is called apostasy, of which is clearly frowned upon.

          Some translations of the Bible use the word "faith" in Habakkuk 2:4 (New King James Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, etc.), while others have "faithfulness" (Young's Literal Translation, New English Translation, etc.). Either choice of wording is acceptable in this context. The Hebrew word "emunah," used in this verse, can be translated as "faith," "faithfulness," "steadfastness," or "trustworthiness," capturing both an inward belief and outward demonstration. The LXX Septuagint translation says, "the just shall live by my faith," as if God's faithfulness is in view. However, that reading of the text is not taken into consideration here. A man who has faith is one who trusts in God. Such a man's character is honorable and reliable. His ways are morally upright. Those who have faith in God will also believe His promises. They are loyal to His covenant. The Apostle Paul would have derived his understanding of faith from the Hebrew Scriptures. By rooting our understanding in that same source, we can gain a fuller appreciation of this profound interplay between belief, action, and divine reliability. David W. Kerr, in the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 876, writes concerning the nature of faith and faithfulness:

          "...In most places in the OT where it [faith] is used it has the second meaning [faithfulness rather than faith], for example, in II Kgs 12:15; Jer 5:1. It is, however, worth noticing that the root of this word [Hebrew emunah] has already been used in Hab 1:5 in the sense of giving credence to God's word or promise. Moreover, faithfulness, even as an aspect of a man's character, does not occur in the void. Faithfulness must be exercised in relation to someone or something. In this case the individual is to be faithful to God, to God's word and covenant. He must rely firmly upon, or have a deep-rooted trust in God himself. The NT use is in complete agreement with this."

          What makes Habakkuk 2:4 remarkable is that emunah is not a common word in prophetic literature, and when it does appear elsewhere in the Old Testament it often describes reliability in very practical, even mundane contexts, such as trustworthy dealings or steadfast conduct in society. By using it here, Habakkuk elevates the term into a theological principle: covenant loyalty expressed through unwavering trust in God’s promises despite overwhelming evidence of chaos. This shift from everyday “dependability” to a profound spiritual posture explains why Paul could see in the verse a foundation for righteousness by faith. The prophet’s choice of wording thus bridges ordinary human reliability with ultimate reliance on divine sovereignty, making the text uniquely suited to bear the weight of Paul’s doctrine of justification. The same author cited before reflects on Paul's usage of Habakkuk 2:4 and his spiritualization of the concept of life:

          "...Paul, in comparison with Habakkuk, enlarges infinitely the scope of the word "live," for he applies it to life to come, to the sphere of salvation or eternal well-being in distinction from merely temporal well-being. That the apostle is justified in doing so will readily be granted by Christians, since the NT writers employ many forms and figures of the OT with a fullness of meaning far transcending that which they had for believers under the older dispensation. Finally, the antithesis between the principle of active faith and that of meritorious law-works as a means of salvation is, of course, a part of the apostle's own argument. It is a logical development from the nature of faith itself."

          The beauty of Habakkuk’s use of emunah lies in its invitation to see faith not as a fleeting emotion, but as a steady posture of the soul. It is the quiet strength that holds fast when circumstances appear to contradict God’s promises. Faithfulness here is not simply about outward obedience, but about an inner resolve to trust that God’s purposes are unfolding even when they remain hidden from view. This is why Paul could so naturally draw upon Habakkuk’s words: the prophet’s call to live by faith in the midst of uncertainty mirrors the believer’s call to cling to Christ in the face of suffering and the seeming silence of God. In both settings, faith becomes the bridge between human frailty and divine reliability, a way of living that rests not on clarity but on confidence in God’s character.

           The Babylonian Talmud has a passage which says that God gave to the Israelites through Moses six hundred and thirteen commandments (tractate Makkot 23b-24a). It is said David reduced that number to fifteen (Psalm 15). Isaiah is said to have further reduced the number of commandments to six (Isaiah 33:15), Micah to three (Micah 6:8), Isaiah again to two (Isaiah 56:1), and Amos to one (Amos 5:4). In contrast to the idea of justification by works of the Law, Habakkuk places emphasis chiefly on faith in God. Walter Roehrs, in the Concordia Self-Study Commentary, Old Testament, p. 639, wrote regarding the nature of faith as conceptualized by both the Prophet Habakkuk and the Apostle Paul:

          "The word faith occurs only once in Habakkuk (2:4); but his whole prophecy is a word of faith, faith agonized, questioning, seeking, finding repose in God, and jubilant, finally, in the assurance of God’s love, and all this in the face of the obstacle to faith posed by God’s scandalously mysterious governance of history. When Paul quotes 2:4 in his thematic statement of justification by faith in Ro 1:17, it is only fair to assume that he is quoting with a consciousness of this original context of faith in Habakkuk. For Paul, as for Habakkuk, faith is confronted by an action of God which is offensively enigmatic, namely, the weakness and foolishness of the Cross; for both Paul and Habakkuk faith is faith without works, for both it is “quietly waiting” for God to do His saving work. For both, faith is not one aspect of man’s existence before God but the whole of his relationship to Him."

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66

Is Isaiah 66 proof that the weekly Sabbath will be observed after Jesus returns, and does this establish Christian doctrine for today? Or is building doctrine from prophecy a bad idea?

---

In my last post, "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2", we looked at a very popular Sabbatarian claim that God created the weekly Sabbath on day seven of creation week and bound all mankind to it forever. That claim almost always comes paired with another. If they don't appear together, then you can be assured someone will be by shortly to deliver the other:

"There is a Sabbath in Isaiah 66. If we see it in prophecy, then it is perpetual and so we are bound to it today."

Of the several challenges for Sabbatarianism, one of the biggest is the fact that the weekly Sabbath is never commanded in the New Covenant (if it were, we wouldn't need claims like these). And so the thinking is, a weekly Sabbath that exists in prophecy is like having a Sabbath command.

There are two major issues we will run into here.
The first is one of shifting standards. Sabbatarian doctrine is frequently built on establishing a standard but only long enough to get what it wants. After that, the standard is quickly abandoned. (As Bereans Did has several articles which demonstrate this.) Watch for that today.
Also, watch how prophecy is front-loaded with assumptions. The entire case today depends on one particular interpretation of prophecy. No other interpretations are allowed. But if the interpretation of prophecy is wrong, this entire claim is wrong.

A HIDDEN COMMAND

(ISA. 66: 23) ...from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the Lord.

There's the word we were looking for - Sabbath. Now we load it up with our interpretations and assumptions, then we are ready to insert our claim: "If we see something in prophecy, then it is perpetual and valid for today." Everybody Sabbath! And so we see articles and sermons and memes without end using Isaiah 66:23 to support Sabbath-keeping, alongside others like Ezekiel 46:3.

In Genesis, we had to prove if the weekly Sabbath is there at all. It is not. Things are different here. Here, Sabbath is right in your face. It's even translated correctly. No need to dive into Hebrew or Greek today.

Isaiah talks about more than just the Sabbath. These words were said to me quite recently, "Isa 66 is a prophecy of the second coming. He saw in vision God destroying those eating foods that God has called an abomination, including swine and mouse [v17]. Unless Isaiah prophesied falsely, these foods are still an abomination."

So, it's not just the Sabbath. 

Apparently, through prophecy, clear New Testament statements about foods can be overridden. And prior commitments to "ceremonial law" being removed can be partially overridden (meats were ceremonially unclean).
Prophecy fills in when you don't have something you want in the New Covenant, and it takes over when you have something you don't want in the New Covenant.
Impressive.

We should expect to see something this powerful discussed throughout church history.

A NEW COMMAND

Where does this "prophecy is a command for today" idea come from? Not from the Bible. God never made this claim. Even the Prophets who gave the prophecies in the first place never made this claim. So, where does the idea come from?

Try as I might, I cannot find anything in history to show this is an older claim. Plenty of people through the centuries have discussed Isaiah 66 and what it means (we will see one later), but they did not come to a conclusion like the one we are looking for. It genuinely appears to have been first articulated in the 1800s, and most likely from ... Sabbatarians.

Earlier Sabbatarians were aware of prophecies, but they were mainly concerned with what they believed was returning to a basic Christianity (as opposed to Catholicism). Seventh Day Baptists used prophecies like Isaiah 66 to claim the Sabbath is perpetual, but these were supporting proof-texts at best. Early SDA pioneers merged their prophecy-focused Adventism with Sabbatarian themes. Ellen G. White refined the use of Sabbath prophecies from a supporting proof text to a clear present obligation, and popularized the idea in her writings.

Now that we know how we got to where we are, we need to ask - if it isn't Biblical and it isn't an older tradition, and if we don't accept Ellen White as a prophet, then why should we accept this claim to begin with? Because it's undeniably true, or because it gets us what we want?

Now let's look at the problems that accepting the claim has caused.

NEW MOONS, LEVITES, AND CEREMONIAL LAW

I purposefully left part of Isaiah 66:23 out. 

(ISA. 66:23) From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath...

"New moon to new moon"?

It's the same in Ezekiel:

(EZE. 46: 3) The people of the land shall bow down at the entrance of that gate before the Lord on the Sabbaths and on the new moons.

Any Sabbatarians out there observing new moons? Some are! But that's a small fraction of a minority who do. Most Sabbatarians are fully aware of new moons but disregard them as required observances.

Can we get Sabbaths without new moons, though? Not in prophecy. It's a package deal.
I mean, seriously, have you done a word search for the verses where Sabbath and new moons appear together? There are several. 13 times in the NKJV Old Testament alone.
How can it be that prophecy is the way to know Sabbaths are a perpetual requirement, but the same prophecy does not do the same thing for new moons? How is prophecy the next best thing to a law where Sabbaths and meats (ie. ceremonial law) are concerned, but nothing of the sort for other less desirable things?

Now let's read a couple verses up.

(ISA. 66: 20-21) 20 And they shall bring all your brothers [diaspora Jews] from all the nations as an offering to the Lord, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord. 21 And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord.

Here is my response to the person I mentioned earlier, the one trying to convince me Isaiah proves meats laws are still in effect: "And unless Isaiah prophesied falsely, it is mandatory to go to Jerusalem every new moon and sabbath to make offerings with a Levite priest. The ceremonial law is still in effect."

The standard is one thing for Sabbaths and meats, but another thing for new moons, Levites, a Temple, and other points.

This talk about Levites and offerings isn't lost on Sabbatarians.

"The reinstitution of the Levitical priesthood and temple in Jerusalem by Christ will revive the sacrificial system."
-"Should Christians Observe the New Moons?", Worldwide Church of God, Feb. 2002, p.10.

Notice the timing there. Sabbath now, Levites not now.

The insistence upon reading prophecies literally leads to all sorts of doctrinal incoherence. Why on earth would Jesus reinstitute the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices (which includes animals) at all when it runs contrary to His own priesthood and His own sacrifice? Answer: He has to because we have committed to a literal interpretation of prophecy and we can't back away now.

A PROPHECY THAT MISREAD COULD HAVE BEEN

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: prophetic interpretation is inherently speculative. I've been preaching that since I was still an Armstrongist. In all this talk about the Sabbath, has anyone considered that we are balancing a near-salvation-level doctrine on a speculative reading of prophecy? We are reviewing one of its most popular proof texts.
This tension between literal and figurative, and the impossible task of proving one over the other prior to the fulfillment, is why I say it is a terrible idea to base doctrine on prophetic interpretation.

Which of these makes more sense:

A) Prophecy must be read literally, so in the immediate future there will be a Levitical priesthood and a Temple and new moons and chariots and ceremonial law, and the entire world will go to Jerusalem every week,
-or-
B) Perhaps we shouldn't read prophecy so literally, because these words could be using ideas the Jews of that time could grasp but really they mean things no human alive at that time could grasp?

I'm going with B.

It's not so far fetched. Do you genuinely expect that in the near future the world will be riding chariots and litters and mules to carry Jews to Jerusalem? Chariots went out of favor 1,500 years ago. Short of robbing a museum, I have no idea where you could even get one. Or!
Could these words picture something else? Is it not said that the locusts of Revelation 9 are really helicopters (or something similar)? Just think of all the images in prophecy which literally are one thing but mean something completely different. The sea is humanity or chaos, stars are angels or saints, beasts are empires, horns are power, oil is the spirit of God, etc etc. When Daniel had his visions, an angel was sent to explain what it meant. When John had his visions, he asked the angel what they meant. Jesus spoke in parables, and the Apostles asked what they meant. When I propose ancient words picture modern realities, it's not outrageous. This is an idea I got from Herbert Armstrong, who in turn got it from Adventists.

With that in mind, Tertullian has an interesting take which we should not ignore. This is from Tertullian's work "Adversus Judaeos" (Answer to the Jews), which was written in about 198-206:

"Whence we [Christians] understand that we still more ought to observe a sabbath from all “servile work” always, and not only every seventh day, but through all time. And through this arises the question for us, what sabbath God willed us to keep? For the Scriptures point to a sabbath eternal and a sabbath temporal. For Isaiah the prophet says, “Your sabbaths my soul hateth;” and in another place he says, “My sabbaths ye have profaned.” Whence we discern that the temporal sabbath is human, and the eternal sabbath is accounted divine; concerning which He predicts through Isaiah: “And there shall be,” He says, “month after month, and day after day, and sabbath after sabbath; and all flesh shall come to adore in Jerusalem, saith the Lord;” which we understand to have been fulfilled in the times of Christ, when “all flesh”—that is, every nation—“came to adore in Jerusalem” God the Father, through Jesus Christ His Son, as was predicted through the prophet: “Behold, proselytes through me shall go unto Thee.” Thus, therefore, before this temporal sabbath, there was withal an eternal sabbath foreshown and foretold; just as before the carnal circumcision there was withal a spiritual circumcision foreshown."
-Tertullian, "Answer to the Jews", chapter IV, on CCEL.

Tertullian argued Isaiah was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and reads Isaiah's "new moons and sabbaths" as "month after month, and day after day". It is fair to treat these phrases this way and some translators do. Do you recall in the post "The Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28" how we discussed the plural of Sabbath actually means weeks? The idea of new moons and sabbaths in prophecy might just be another way of saying month after month and week after week and day after day. Or, in other words, always.
Why is this important? Because if Tertullian is right, then Isaiah heads straight in the direction of the New Covenant Sabbath as a perpetual rest in Jesus Christ.

To put it another way, Isaiah could be supporting the Sabbath in Christ.

I am absolutely certain every Sabbatarian will balk at this. But accept it or reject it, either way it's based on preference. Short of having an angel come and tell you exactly what it means, all prophetic interpretation is inherently speculative.
But if we reject figurative interpretations in favor of literal, then we return to a requirement to observe new moons with a Levitical Priesthood ...and trying to back out of that requirement.

ESCAPING ARMSTRONGISM

Armstrongism has always considered new moons for their calendar. For example, see the article by Kenneth Hermann, "Prove God's Calendar Correct" Good News Magazine volume VI, number 10, October 1957. The author goes into great detail about the minutiae of how the moon works for establishing lunisolar calendars. It's not that they aren't familiar with new moons. But when it considered whether or not to observe new moons, the Worldwide Church of God said no.

"It might be noted here that the new moons are often mentioned in association with festival celebrations in the Old Testament. During the lengthy centuries when the calendar was determined by observation of the new crescent, witnesses had to report to the proper authorities and the new month could officially be declared. The day of the new moon was, consequently, very important. Therefore, the new moons were always given a certain special regard. 
On the other hand, new moons are never designated holy days. They are not included in any of the lists of festivals. No special sanctity is ever attached to them. The only extraordinary regard accorded them was that certain special offerings were carried out on their days, But this did not in any way hallow them, since offerings were offered every secular day as well. They also lost something of their former special function when the calendar became determined solely by calculation in the early centuries A.D. "
-"Systematic Theology", Worldwide Church of God, 1978, p.8.

But Psalm 81:3 and Hosea 2:11 do call the new moon a feast day. Amos 8:5 practically treats it like a sabbath. And I Samuel 20 shows it being observed. Do a word search. New moon and Sabbath and "appointed feast" appear together far more often than not.
Yet they said no. And they kept saying no.

Earlier in this post I quoted a WCG Doctrinal Paper titled "Should Christians Observe the New Moons?". In that Doctrinal Paper, the WCG reiterated what we just read in the Systematic Theology.

What happened to treating prophecy like the command we never had? What happened to the prophecy providing what was missing?

But get this, from page 9 of the Doctrinal Paper:

"But there is no indication that these special days [new moons] are commanded of Christians today who worship God without a physical temple or Levitical priesthood."

Do you realize what they just said? Put in other words, they just said, "Just because we see something in prophecy does not make it binding on us today."
Why, I'll be! They made the same argument that I am making!
...but only when it comes to new moons, the Levitical priesthood, and most ceremonial laws.

Perhaps you are a Sabbatarian but not from Armstrongism and you feel this section doesn't apply to you. This blog focuses primarily on Armstrongism, so that is what I quote here. These may not be your church's words, but if you are not celebrating new moons and participating in the other things we've seen in prophecy, then your church is likely making similar claims as we've seen here.

Please read this next part slowly and carefully. This is the heart of everything I've written here.

They dismiss new moons because there is no command for Christians to observe them today. But why are we appealing to Isaiah 66 for the weekly Sabbath in the first place? Because there is no command for Christians to observe it today. Same condition, different result.
Did I not say at the start of this post that if the Sabbath were commanded in the New Covenant then we wouldn't need claims like this one? Yes.
They use a prophecy when it seems to support their existing doctrine, they dismiss the very same prophecy when it doesn't support their existing doctrine. When Isaiah 66 appears to support meats laws, the prophecy is more important than clear New Testament statements. But when the same prophecy points toward new moons, a Levitical priesthood, etc, then New Testament statements suddenly become more important than the prophecy.

One standard here, another there.
A literal view of prophecy here, a metaphorical one there.

CONCLUSION

Which is true: “If we see it in prophecy, we are bound to it today,” or “we are not bound today to what we see in prophecy”? Sabbatarians use both claims, depending on what they are trying to prove.

There are two problems here.
The first is interpretation. How are these prophecies really meant to be understood? Literally? Figuratively? Fulfilled already? Still future? Everyone insists their reading is obvious while disagreeing with each other constantly.
The second problem is standards. The same prophecy used to restore Sabbath-keeping and meats laws is quietly abandoned when it points toward new moons, sacrifices, and Levitical priesthood. One standard here, another there.

If it were truly a binding claim, it would be consistently applied, and it would not inherently rely on a speculative interpretation of prophecy. It stands or falls on one view of prophecy, which no human can prove. So no, this is not the solid claim it is presented to be.
A shifting standard founded on a best guess. And that is one of the prime proof texts for Sabbatarianism.

I leave you with this advice - building doctrine on prophetic interpretation is a bad idea.

Other articles in this series:
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Sabbath Rest of John 14

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

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

Acts 17:11

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