The Gospel, Sin, and Glory

God reveals that iniquity was found in Satan. What, exactly, was his sin; his iniquity?

He sought his own glory.

Sin is properly defined as missing the mark in relation to the glory of God. Not the transgression of the law as the children of the devil attempt to redefine sin.

(1 John 3:4) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Sin here is the Greek word “hamartia” which means ‘missing the mark’ as in shooting an arrow at a target out of range. The glory of God is out of range for mankind. It is a target; a goal beyond man’s reach. Modifying the poorly translated verse and ignoring the first half of the verse, imparts an interpretation that exceeds the boundaries of the translation.

“…for sin is ‘anomia’” where ‘anomia’ is commonly translated into three words that are synonymous: Evil, iniquity, lawlessness; not in a specific sense, such as restricted to the Decalogue, but in a general sense, for a Greek, speaking Greek, would understand ‘anomia’ from the perspective of Greek culture, and not Hebrew culture.

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

God shares His glory with no one.

(Isaiah 42:8) I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

(Isaiah 48:11) For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

The devil’s children, such as were the Pharisees, sought their own glory through the law; an elevated status among their peers. For those who reject the gospel, it is often due to their need to glorify themselves… give themselves the credit and glory even when it comes to their own salvation, believing their law keeping, according to their interpretation of Mt. 19:17, results in them saving themselves; a self-glorification that sees God’s participation in their salvation as a minor assistance. The function of the Holy Spirit is to enable them to keep the law, where they can now ‘hit the mark’ in relation to the glory of God, which again they interpret to mean the avoidance of sin by keeping the law.

Notice then the parallel with the goal of Satan to achieve parity with God through his own glorification of his own position where he sought to establish his throne on par with or equal to God’s.

(Isaiah 14:12-14) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

The Gospel is a plain and simple matter of Salvation being about what God does for mankind, where the only ‘requirement’ on our part is belief; faith and trust in God that He does exactly what He says He will do.

Those who reject the Gospel do so for one of two reasons:

1) They do not believe God. They do not have faith in God.

2) They believe they have an active part in their own Salvation where they can boast in their own ‘glory’ for accomplishing their part of the process, such as keeping the law. Their Salvation is a collaborative effort, where they can share in the glory.

There are also those who falsify the Gospel for their own gain; false prophets seeking a following; wolves in sheep’s clothing who seek to feed their own bellies at the expense of others, robbing them not only of their livelihoods, but even their life in paradise with God in His kingdom through this subterfuge. They often use the law as the means of their deception, appealing to the ego of their followers by presenting themselves as though they know the spiritual ropes of salvation.

The true Gospel resists manipulation by deceivers, due to its simplicity. Deceivers need complexity in order to sell their services to those they seek to manipulate and control. They need to present the Gospel as a complex issue with hoops that need to be jumped through in order to achieve the final goal.

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

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 First and Greatest Commandment: Greater than you Think

There is a pattern found in Scripture as to how God goes about giving a command, followed by a test to see whether you will follow it, or circumvent it.

This methodology; this process, if found in the very beginning, and it is related to whether one will believe God, place their faith, trust, belief, solely with God, or not.

God created Adam and Eve. He gave them a test to see whether they would follow and obey Him, or compromise faith, using the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as the basis of this test.

There were two choices presented… two trees. There was the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They were told they could partake of the fruit of any tree, with the express exception of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

So there are two specific trees mentioned; one allowed, the other not allowed, where both trees are God’s trees.

Life is found, or results, upon eating or partaking of the Tree of Life, where the narrative points out they would have lived forever upon partaking of it, and death is found by partaking of the other of God’s trees.

Enter the serpent into the narrative. He confronts Eve, and draws her attention to the second one of God’s trees, and Eve responds with what they were commanded in relation to it; eat of it, and they would die. The serpent contradicts God, and claims the opposite in a round about way; that they would become like God, knowing good and evil; that there was something of great value to be had should they partake of it; eat of its fruit. All the while, the other tree is still there, and accessible. The Tree of Life, and the option to eat of its fruit.

(John 6:53-58) Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

The parallels could hardly be more obvious. Life is found and acquired by partaking of Christ, where “eating His flesh” follows the pattern of eating of the Tree of Life.

Eve however, and by extension Adam, ended up partaking of the wrong tree, influenced by the serpent to do so - God’s tree - that imparted a knowledge of evil.

(Romans 7:7) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

That tree was not sin. It was God’s tree that served a particular function. It identified sin, and condemned the sinner.

God commanded Adam and Even not to eat of that tree. They did anyway, at the goading of the serpent; a commandment that included a specific punishment for disobedience to that verbal command.

The law, which contained commandments, is what produces the wrath; the punishment for disobedience to written commands where some of those commandments were specific to that “covenant” law God made with the Hebrews at Mt. Sinai.

That law follows a similar pattern regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, found in the very first two commandments in the Decalogue.

(Exodus 20:1-3) And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

God here was the One who rescued them from the slavery of Egypt, described as being their salvation. He was their Savior. No one else came to their rescue.

(Exodus 14:13) And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever.

We are still dealing with typology here, as was the case with the narrative in Genesis with the two trees. Their salvation from God was a physical rescue from Egypt. The ultimate salvation of God is spiritual, for the soul; the inner man composed and described as the heart, mind, and soul of mankind.

But now, following this first commandment in the Decalogue, look carefully to what comes next and compare this with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which I remind you again was God’s tree.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: (Exodus 20:4)

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:5-6) 

What is not perceived by those with a veil before their eyes is that a similar test is being made just as was the case in the garden of Eden…

Listen to me; do as I say. Do not have other gods besides Me. I am the God who saved you from Egypt. No one else; no other ‘god’ did so. Do not fall into sin by serving other gods, being obedient to them; gods that are graven images of anything found in heaven above, the earth beneath, or in the water beneath the earth.

What commonly found substance is found in heaven above, upon the earth, and under the sea that can be graven into an image?

Stone.

You are not going to find wood floating around in heaven or under the sea that could be useful for much of anything except maybe kindling. So an idol made of wood, given this criteria, would not be what is being described.

Like the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, set there in the garden of Eden to test Adam and Eve, God now carves out of stone two tablets, and engraves them with commandments, set in stone, where the stone becomes a codification of commandments… a “law”.

What was to happen should anyone transgress or break any of these commandments in this law set? Moses knew and understood, and he witnessed what the Hebrews were doing upon descending from the mount, where they were practicing idolatry already, with an idol of wood overlaid with gold that they equated with the God who rescued them; provided them with their salvation from bondage. He summarily smashed the two tablets of stone; graven images that were to be set before them, where by accepting them and being obedient to them; graven images, was to actually serve and obey them and would have resulted in their condemnation.

(Exodus 32:4) And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

Fast forward to today and examine how the Decalogue is treated by Sabbatarianism, especially Adventism, where Adventism imbues the Decalogue with many of the characteristics of God, equivocating the Decalogue with God, even as the Hebrews equivocated their idol with God, where to obey the law is equated with obedience to God.

The Decalogue is seen as eternal, like God. Unchangeable, like God. A “transcript of God’s character.” And God is given the characteristics of the law; the Decalogue so that God is seen as condemning transgressions of the law even as the law results in condemnation against those who commit sin. Yet God, in Scripture, specifically states He does not judge like a man does, according to appearance. Rather, God judges according to the heart, and He pointed out that the heart of man is a sinful heart; a “deceitful and desperately wicked heart” in Jeremiah 17:9.

Seeing as the heart is sinful, and the law condemns sinful man, man ends up condemning himself with the very law they embrace they imbue with the characteristics of God, including Savior, thinking the law, and obedience to the law, will result in or enhance their salvation. Theirs is a divided devotion between the law and God, where they cannot see this relationship as idolatrous, so much so, that the Pharisees, who kept and taught the law, and chose the law over God, using the law to judge God as a man judges, according to appearance, where they ‘saw’ Him break the Sabbath by working on the Sabbath, never mind the nature of the work and the heart of God who performed the work.

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

It could not be much plainer and simpler to understand. The Pharisees embraced the law; served the law as their master, where God was the other master they threw under the proverbial bus, having a hatred of Him and the Father in heaven.

(John 15:24) If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

What works did He do that no other man did? Healed the blind and raised the dead, the issue being He did many of those works on the Sabbath, intentionally so.

Jesus did not sin by working on the Sabbath, doing good works He, God Incarnate, declared to be good works and therefore lawful on the Sabbath. What Sabbatarians ignore, intentionally, is that all the works of those Jews, including the Pharisees who boasted and bragged about their law keeping prowess, were committing sin by condemning Christ Jesus, judging unrighteous judgment, using the law to do so; their idols of engraved stones.

As an interesting aside, I find it fascinating that the Hebrews addressed the gilded calf in the plural, as cited above.

The law; the Decalogue, was another god; engraved in stones: A law obeyed and served, assigned the attributes of God so that they are seen as one and the same in nearly every detail.

A Sabbatarian / Adventist at this point would be bringing to mind what Paul wrote about the law being holy, just, and good as a conditioned response that blocks critical thinking. So a simple question, designed to kick start critical thinking: Was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil holy, just and good? It came from God; created by God, and all God made during those six days of Creation God called good. And you could easily argue that, having been created by God, it had intrinsic holiness. How about just? They were warned not to eat of it, and did anyway, incurring the penalty for doing so, which was justly deserved.

What happened to one under the law who sinned? They were guilty of sin before God and justly condemned, not by God, but by the law they agreed to that demanded the death of the offending party to that covenant law.

They all thought, they all believed, they would be blessed by the law, by keeping the law, with the blessings God said they would receive by keeping it, which they never did, being deceived by their own deceptive hearts. The author of the book of Hebrews points out, retrospectively, they all had evil hearts of unbelief.

Can an evil person keep the Decalogue, in the letter?

I answer by pointing out the Pharisees, who condemned Christ Jesus, did. However, I have read where Adventists claimed they were keeping the law “wrong.” So I’ll turn to Paul and what he had to say about his dedication to the law as a Pharisee.

(Philippians 3:3-9) For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

What he felt was gain for him previously, including keeping the law and the righteousness found there, was of no value to him when it came to Christ and salvation found in Him.

Keeping the law provides no spiritual benefit. It is, according to Paul here, just another issue related to the flesh, where we are to have no confidence.

So you refrain from committing those evils prohibited in the Decalogue… big fat hairy deal. You can keep the law that says not to kill (murder) while harboring hatred in your heart for another; a fruit/work of that flesh that is the SPIRIT of murder. You can refrain from committing adultery, while committing adultery in your heart; the spirit of adultery.

You know that to do these things is wrong and evil. You don’t need the law to tell you not to be doing them. But you conclude that were the law not relevant, others (not you!) would be committing these evils with wild abandon; people who have embraced Christ sans the law you embrace; “cheap grace” that you perceive as a license to sin, which is like saying that without the condemnation of the law, people would be emboldened to do evil. You believe the role of the law in Christianity is one of regulation; it controls the Christian with an ever looming threat of punishment meted out by the law; a death sentence, that results in two things worth mentioning.

1) Your stance ignores a critical aspect of the Gospel and salvation that requires a reconciliation between you and God, accomplished by God through His sacrifice for sin so that you could be justly forgiven, and:

2) Your denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of those who embraced Christ Jesus, alone, believing the Gospel unaltered and pure, where the Holy Spirit is now the guiding principle in the life of a believer, and not the law.

The things addressed by the Decalogue and much of the law are in relation to the works or fruits of the flesh, which those led by the Holy Spirit eschew due to the influence of the Holy Spirit, now producing the works / fruits of the Spirit to the exclusion of the works / fruits of the flesh; works that led to death, despite being under the law and keeping the law / Decalogue.

What those under the law, whether born under the law or those who opt for the law; the moment you embraced the Decalogue, you sinned and never knew it. You were choosing the “wrong tree” like Adam and Eve, overlooking the “other tree” of Life: The Author of Life.

You chose the idols of stone; graven images that you even agree taught you; imparted to you a rudimentary knowledge of good and evil, and where the balance of the law and prophets teach you that mankind, sans God’s Holy Spirit, are all led by the flesh, motivated by the flesh wherein dwells no good thing; sinful flesh, under the condemnation of the law you so readily embraced.

The law motivates through fear; fear of the penalty of the law; a death sentence. A law of sin and death.

God’s Spirit, placed within the believer; the “law” God places in the believer, that is what leads and guides the believer where they are motivated by the Spirit of love, leading to life. One in this condition has no desire to sin and disappoint their Father in Heaven whose Son died for them, freeing them from the clutches of sin and the law of sin and death that hung over them like a dark cloud; foreboding, looming and waiting for the payment of your sins to be paid by you.

You already rejected the Gospel and the tree of life, having chosen the other “tree” whose fruit kills, even as does the letter of the law as Paul points out in 2Corinthians chapter 3.

Rejecting Christ Jesus and the faith unfeigned in Him, solely, resulted in your fate being sealed, unless God Himself decides to deal with you, personally, even as He did with Paul. Until then, and despite what I have written here, you will remain tethered to the Decalogue; your other god, and you will continue to serve and obey it, without comprehension that the Decalogue cannot hear you and cannot save you or contribute at all to your salvation. Its sole purpose and function was to condemn the faithless; those whose faith, hope and devotion was commanded by God to be solely in 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

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

What Does A Codified Law Do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Heart Versus Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some listen to Him.

Some do not.

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Genesis 26:5 - Did Abraham Keep the Law?

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

---

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

Let's see that verse:

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

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

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

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

TROUBLES

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

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

Also, we have a conflict with Paul:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TO GET WHAT WE WANT

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

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

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

IN A WORD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECOND LOOK

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

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

Obviously, a large part of it was faith:

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

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

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

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

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

TITHE LAW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEGAL BRIEF

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

The Sabbatarian claim seems to be built on these things:

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

My proposed solution has two parts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Keeping the Sabbath Holy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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