One Jot or One Tittle

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

I bet you know this selection. Sure is a popular one. Tells us the law will never go away. Says right there in black and white "till heaven and earth pass".

I was recently encouraged to get out my Bible and learn God's word, that the Sabbath is a New Covenant thing, because this verse says so. Not one jot or tittle. Not one dot of the I or cross of the T.

Seems pretty convincing to me.

MISLEAD US NOT

A good number of people act as if Jesus only said, "I did not come to destroy the law. Til heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law."

But is that what He said?
Read that one more time. Was anything left out?

So many people read this verse right up to the point where it says "pass from the law", and there they stop. The goal of some readers was never to understand the verse, but to find something that justifies preconceptions. Believing themselves to have achieved the goal, they quickly move on to the next proof text. Yet Jesus does not actually stop there. Neither shall we.

Have you ever heard of the Lord's Prayer? Maybe you know it as the Our Father. You can read it in Matthew 6. Towards the end there, it says, "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." Have you ever wondered about that? Lead us not into temptation?? What's that all about?

Well, it turns out the people in that time and place had a peculiar way of emphasizing a point. They would lead with an opposite statement to give their main point some contrast. The contrast creates the emphasis. The statement "lead us not into temptation but" is merely there to contrast and emphasize the main point "deliver us from evil." The direct audience Jesus was speaking to would have fully understood what Jesus was doing. It had nothing to do with asking God not to lead us into temptation. God doesn't lead us into temptation, so why ask that. The temptation is the opposite, and thus contrast and emphasis, to the desired result of delivering us from evil. It is the rough equivalent of saying, "I really want you to deliver us from evil."

The form of this kind of emphasis goes like this. You make a contrasting statement for emphasis, then place a "but", then finish with the main idea that you're really after.

Kinda like this: I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

The main thrust of Jesus' statement was not about not destroying but about fulfilling. That's why both verses 17 and 18 end with the idea of fulfilling.

Circling back to my question... So, what was left out: "til all is fulfilled." Fulfillment was left out.

It was left out, but it's the most important point.

FAILURE IN ACTION

I had a very brief conversation with a person who read this verse as if fulfillment wasn't there. They said, "Jesus Himself said that NOTHING shall pass away from the law until heaven and earth itself passes away (Matthew 5:17-18). Has heaven and earth passed away? No, therefore the law (ten commandments) STILL STAND."
I asked them their opinion of how Hebrews 7: 12 fits with their view. They responded, "...that is what you sinful human said."
    o_O

I didn't state anything. I just asked a question.
So, Hebrews 7: 12, which unambiguously says the law has changed (and not just a little), is part of me being a sinful human? I didn't write it.

We cannot have MAT. 5: 18 saying, "NOTHING shall pass away from the law until heaven and earth itself passes away," and HEB. 7: 12 saying massive parts of the law have passed away. These two very incompatible things cannot both be true.

In Armstrongism, or take Adventism for instance, the vast majority of the law is gone. Erased. Even in the person's comments above, look closely at what was said: "...the law (ten commandments)". The Ten aren't the whole law by a long shot. And we all know it isn't the whole ten they're interested in, but only the Sabbath law.
We cannot have NOTHING passing away from the law, and have 97% of it passing away. We cannot have "not one jot or one tittle," and have the ceremonial and national laws removed. You have to choose one.

The person had no answer for my question. Since I asked a question, they had every opportunity to expound on their solution but they chose not to. They just resorted to attacking me. This is because they didn't have a solution. I conclude this is because they didn't come to Matthew to understand in the first place. They only came to proof text some support for a predetermined conclusion. They were willing to die on the hill of "not one jot or one tittle" even while they do not keep anything remotely close to the whole law. (And I am the sinner? I am, but at least I am trying to meet my own standard.) They were willing to hold that both Matthew and Hebrews are true and inspired word of God, but not willing to deal with how their understanding of Matthew forces Hebrews to be woefully false. They hold two utterly incompatible propositions as true at the same time, and attacked me when my question pointed it out. That, my friends, is called cognitive dissonance.

So, what is the solution here? The answer is fulfillment.

TIL ALL IS FULFILLED

The verse should not be read as, "The law will remain until heaven and earth pass away." That is just not what it says. It's not only Hebrews which makes that interpretation unworkable, it's several other places in the New Testament and in early church history as well. If you want more on the early church, see our article "Quartodecimans - Were They Law Keepers?" This verse should not be read as, "The law will remain until heaven and earth pass." This verse should be read as, "The law will remain until all is fulfilled."

Am I just ignoring the part about "till heaven and earth pass away"? No. If you are asking that question, re-read the Mislead Us Not section. I started there for this very reason. But let's go over that just a little.

God takes His covenants very seriously. God made a covenant with Israel and He was going to keep His end of it, regardless. You can see throughout the Old Testament what lengths God would go to in order to keep His covenant. One of my favorite selections in the entire Bible shows this.

(EZE. 16: 62-63) 62 And I will establish My [New] covenant with you. Then you shall know that I am the Lord, 63 that you may remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth anymore because of your shame, when I provide you an atonement for all you have done,” says the Lord God.

It says, "I will establish My covenant with you," and, "When I provide you an atonement for all you have done." That is speaking of what Jesus accomplished when He made atonement for all sins and ushered in the New Covenant. Kinda reminds me of Ephesians 2: 8-9.

Understand that Ezekiel (often referred to as "son of man") was a captive in Babylon, and he wrote in the months just before Nebuchadnezzar would go a third time to invade Jerusalem. Ezekiel gets quite graphic about the idolatry and faithlessness of Judah. Yet, even through all that, God still planned their redemption. He never gave up. Even when no one else does, God takes His covenants very seriously.

At As Bereans Did, we emphasize frequently how the Old Covenant law is all a singular body. The law and the covenant are one. The law are the terms of the Covenant. For Jesus to come and simply destroy the law, to use His authority and just wipe it away, would be to abandon the covenant. Why would He do that, especially when He was so close to what He had planned for centuries? He wouldn't! He was so dead set on keeping that covenant that He said, "Til heaven and earth pass away..." Clearly, God would have remained committed to that covenant until the physical universe passed away from heat death.
Thank God He didn't have to!

The whole body of Old Covenant law, all 613 of them, were covenant law, and were binding on Israel. There was but one way to escape the covenant: death. When some individual Israelite died, the law had no further hold on them. (ROM 7: 1-6, GAL. 2: 19, and I COR. 7: 39.) This would continue forever - until heaven and earth passed away - if it weren't for one thing: the death of God. When God died, the entirety of the Old Covenant was dissolved and the law with it. He did not just by fiat declare it gone. He died and wiped it away. He wouldn't destroy it any more than He would lead us into temptation.
Even so, it wasn't so simple as He died. He fulfilled it first. All of it. Every last legal requirement of it, in the way it was intended to be kept. Perfectly.

It is true what Jesus said. He did not come to destroy.
...but to fulfill.

WHERE THERE ARE PROPHECIES

Now that we've looked at fulfillment, let's go back to my question from the Mislead Us Not section. Fulfillment wasn't the only thing left out. The prophets were also left out.

(MAT. 5. 17) Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets.

The thinking goes, "The law will remain until heaven and earth pass away." We've addressed that. But when we plug in the second missing piece, the prophets, does it work? "NOTHING shall pass away from the Prophets until heaven and earth pass away." Every prophecy will remain until heaven and earth pass away? Does that seem right to you? Of course it doesn't.

Some prophecies were clearly intended for immediate fulfillment. For example, the prophecies in Ezekiel about God punishing the nations that worked against Jerusalem when Nebuchadnezzar came the third time and destroyed it. The fulfillment was but months off. Will those last until heaven and earth pass away?
Some prophecies were intended for Jesus' first coming. For example, the prophecies in Isaiah 53, and Psalms 22, and Zechariah 12 have many things that, in hindsight, perfectly match Jesus' first advent. Will those last until heaven and earth pass away?
Anyone who subscribes to a Premillennial view of eschatology (and that is all Armstrongists) will agree there are prophecies that specifically point to the time before and up to Jesus' second coming. Adventism is entirely built on such as these. Will those prophecies remain until heaven and earth pass? 

No. These prophecies have either already passed long ago, or will pass in the relatively near future. At any rate, they will pass long before the end of the earth.

Let's read an example to see if it works.
Until heaven and earth pass, I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage; and that will be the wages for his army. (EZE. 29: 19)
Does that work? No.

Well well. Guess what. In order to force Matthew to say "NOTHING shall pass away from the law until heaven and earth itself passes away," a terrible and unworkable problem was created. We must equally apply that same standard to the entire equation. And so we also get, "NOTHING shall pass away from the Prophets until heaven and earth itself passes away."
Everyone knows things have indeed passed away from the law, and clearly everyone should know things have indeed passed away from the prophets.

So, what was Jesus really saying? Precisely as we observed with Jesus' commitment to the Covenant, Jesus was demonstrating His commitment to the prophecies about Himself and His mission.

Even though He had the authority and the means, He was not going to simply sidestep any of it. He made the prophecies in the first place, and He was going to face them head on. When the time eventually came for Him to do what He said, yes, He hoped for another way, understandably, but in the end He kept His commitment (MAT. 26: 39, 42).

He fulfilled all the law and every last prophecy about Himself and His mission. All of them. Up to the point that He had to explain it all to His Apostles after the fact.

(JON. 19: 30) So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

And so it is finished.

All.
Is.
Fulfilled.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

One minor thing I want to point out here. If the intent of this verse is to say the law is going to last until heaven and earth pass away, then this verse explicitly states the law is not eternal.

There are people who quote this verse to buttress their law keeping, then turn around and say the law is eternal. How many ways can they find to contradict a single verse? So much for that.

For more on this law is eternal stuff, please read our article "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VI".

CONCLUSION

Jesus' point was not to say, "The law will last until heaven and earth pass," but to say, "Nothing will stop me from fulfilling My commitments."

That's quite a different interpretation than the one given in Armstrongism, wouldn't you say? Yet, the legalist interpretation is unworkable. Something needs to explain it. We cannot have MAT. 5: 18 saying, "NOTHING shall pass away from the law until heaven and earth itself passes away," and HEB. 7: 12 saying massive parts of the law have passed away. These two very incompatible things cannot both be true. 

The proper interpretation of these verses is, in a word, "fulfillment."

The main thrust of Jesus' statement wasn't about not destroying but rather fulfilling.
Then He fulfilled it all. He accomplished it all. Telestai!

My solution makes both Matthew and Hebrews correct and in harmony, plus it meshes with what we see in church history. The other position makes Matthew true and Hebrews at odds and unintelligible, plus it creates a web of conspiracies through history that cannot be proven out.

If I am wrong, then why aren't you keeping all 613 laws that you say are binding on us all? It's because you also say some jots and tittles have passed away. The only difference between us is you say most have passed away, and I say all have.
And don't even get me started on the Law of God vs Law of Moses nonsense.

The person in the conversation asked, "Has heaven and earth passed away? No, therefore the law (ten commandments) STILL STAND."
No. That's the wrong question.
A better question is, "Has anything in the law and the prophets passed away? Yes, therefore all has been FULFILLED."

 

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

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

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

Are The Ten Commandments Removed?

In my post, Is Ceremonial Law Removed? we investigated whether or not the ceremonial law was indeed gone, as many claim. We found that even though it is removed, the very ones who stress the hardest that it is gone are the ones treating it the most like it is not gone. They do this by retaining cherry-picked elements of ceremonial law while telling us those elements are somehow not ceremonial.
Today, we will do this same investigation on the Ten Commandments.

Unfortunately, this topic will mean a long post. My apologies in advance.

Do we have to keep the Ten Commandments in the New Covenant? Does eliminating the Ten Commandments kick the door wide open for an immoral free-for-all, as some claim? Can we modify the Ten Commandments and still say we're keeping them? Are we keeping them even if we don't realize it?

This and more will be explored as you read on. Let's start at the start.

WHAT ARE THE TEN?

The Ten Commandments were first given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Moses was to give them to Israel. They were for Israel alone (DEU. 5: 3). If you read Deuteronomy 5: 1-22 or Exodus 20: 1-17, you'll be up to speed.

Regarding the name "Ten Commandments", 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.

The Ten Commandments should not be translated "commandments". This fact ought to help people who are confused when they see the word commandments in the New Testament. We might read, "If you love Me, keep My commandments," and think that is referring to the Ten Commandments, because they both say commandments, but that is incorrect. They do not both say "commandments" in Hebrew. Ancient Jews, the actual audience, wouldn't think this. The Ten shouldn't have been translated commandments in the first place.

People argue over how the Ten should be numbered, but the numbering is really an artificial construct. The Bible does not number them. The difference seems to come from what source you used. In the end, it doesn't matter if the Sabbath command is listed as the third or the fourth. The numbering is artificial anyway.

In Armstrongism, the Sabbath command is numbered as the fourth. This happens to be the way most Jewish groups number them. This is not how the Catholics number them. That is neither right nor wrong. It just is. The failure comes in when one accuses others of eliminating the fourth commandment simply because the numbering is different. Catholics have not removed the Sabbath command. They just list it as the third rather than the fourth. You can see that for yourself in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part three, Section two, Chapter one, Article three "The Third Commandment". Church of God ministers bring shame on themselves for violating the command against bearing false witness while they preach about the validity of the Ten Commandments.

COVENANT LAW

The Ten Commandments are "covenant law". What does that mean? It means the Ten Commandments are inextricably part of the Old Covenant.

Think of the Old Covenant as a contract. The only difference between a covenant and a contract is God is directly involved. It is a legally binding agreement between specific parties to achieve specific ends for a specific duration of time. All contracts apply only to the parties of that contract, in this case God and Israel. Contracts by definition cannot apply to anyone who is not party to that contract. All contracts have terms. Terms are what the parties agree to do. The law are the terms. All good contracts also have penalties. Penalties are what happens if the terms are not met. Contracts have a start. The Old started at Sinai. Contracts have a termination. For an individual Israelite, it ended when they died. When God died, it ended for everyone.
We go over this in great detail in our post "Confusing the Covenants".

All 613 laws in the Torah, including the Ten Commandments, are the terms of the Old Covenant. It's not like we have the Torah over here, and the Old Covenant over there, and the two really are only tangentially linked. No. They are essentially linked. The Ten Commandments are integral to the Covenant.

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

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

(DEU. 5: 1-21) … 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 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. 4 The LORD talked with you face to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 5 I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up the mountain. He said… [lists the Ten Commandments].
(DEU. 9: 9) When I went up into the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water.

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

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

Recall the Ark of the Covenant. Why do you suppose they called it the Ark of the Covenant? Because it was the Ark (box, repository) of the Covenant (Ten Commandments).

(I KIN. 8: 9, 21) 9 Nothing was in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. 21 And there I have made a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD which He made with our fathers, when He brought them out of the land of Egypt.

Anyone who insists the Decalogue is not the Old Covenant, I'm very sorry, but the overwhelming weight of this evidence stands against your interpretation.

We have gone over all of this many times before. I suggest you read "The Covenant and the Testimony".

The Old Covenant law does not exist apart from the covenant. The law does not stand alone. The Ten only exist within and because of the Old Covenant. The covenant is what binds the law on the people. They agreed to the terms (the law).

Understanding covenants is utterly, absolutely, critically essential. Not understanding covenants, and how the law and the Old Covenant are one, is the single biggest mistake most legalists make.

If you actually read the Judaism 101 article I mentioned earlier, you will see they start the article like this:

"All 613 of those mitzvot [laws] are equally sacred, equally binding and equally the word of G-d. All of these mitzvot are treated as equally important..."
-ibid

And they are correct! All of the laws in the Old Covenant are equal. Why? Because they are all terms of a covenant. They are covenant law. All of them. This is how James can say:

(JAS. 2: 10) For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.

The law that bars Gentiles from observing Passover (EXO. 12: 43-49) is equally binding as the law that says it can only be observed in Jerusalem (DEU. 16: 5-7). Are you keeping Passover? Yes. Are you a Gentile? Yes. STOP! You've violated the law. Are you keeping it in Jerusalem? No. STOP! You've violated the law.

If you are keeping the Ten, but not keeping some other portion of law you don't think is important, then you've violated it all. If you say you need to observe a Holy Day, but don't do all that the law says must be done on that day, then you have not followed the law but you've violated the law.

People who believe they are observing the law by keeping some cherry-picked selection of laws are forgetting that all the whole body of laws is one unit, indivisible. If you stumble in any of it, you’re guilty of all of it.

If you’re not keeping all the law, you’re not keeping the law at all (GAL. 3: 10).

And once you’ve failed, you’ve failed. The law has no provision for forgiveness of a willful sin. For each and every last one of us - except Jesus Christ Himself - it’s already too late. We've already failed. Further failed attempts will not help you.

The good news for us sinners is - when the Covenant ended, the terms dissolved.

Anyone who says the Ten Commandments continue on to today has misunderstood how a covenant works, and misunderstood that the Old Covenant has ended and has been dissolved (HEB. 8: 13). Law gone. End of story. The terms of a covenant do not and cannot continue beyond the termination of the covenant. That was Paul's entire point in Romans 7: 1-6. If the New Covenant has any similarities to the Old (and it does) it is not because the terms came forward, but because similar yet completely new terms were created.

Think of it this way. If you get married you are bound to that covenant so long as you both shall live. But one sad day, your spouse passes away. My condolences on your loss. Eventually, your heart finds new life and you get married again. Once again, you are bound to that covenant so long as you both shall live. You are in the same condition as the first marriage. Why?

A) Because the second marriage is really just a continuation of the first, and the terms of the first marriage "came forward", or,
B) Because all marriages have similar terms because they have similar reasons to exist, but this is a brand new marriage and not a continuation of the first in any sense?

The answer is B. The first is gone, dissolved, no longer existing, but the second is going to be similar just because of the nature of it. And so it is with the two Great Covenants.

Paul's uses marriage as an example in Romans 7: 1-4. His point is the Old Covenant is gone. You have died in baptism, and the law has no hold on you any longer.

This is where the excuse-making starts up.

People will claim the law is eternally binding, they proof text "not one jot or tittle", they make up fantasies about British Israelism, etc etc.
We have several posts addressing these excuses and workarounds. Try reading our series on Common Legalist Arguments or "Two Trees - Two Covenants".
Some people even go so far as to deny there is a New Covenant. That is patently ridiculous.
But all of these excuses fall down flat when we inspect them fairly and honestly, from a neutral standpoint.

DO WE NEED TO KEEP THE TEN?

No.

The Ten Commandments are terms of the Old Covenant, and the Old Covenant is gone so the Ten are gone. We do not have to "keep" the Ten Commandments. Jesus died and it is gone for all, you died with Him in baptism so it is gone for you, and it was confirmed in Acts 15 & 21 that the law is not necessary for new converts. You do not need to keep the Ten Commandments.

"Wait! What!? Now I know you've lost your mind, xHWA!" [rips garments]

Hold on! Don't tear your garments yet. Hear me out.

People think they must keep Old Covenant laws, like the Ten, first because they don't understand covenants (which is why I started there), second because that is what they were told and they haven't thought it through or haven't heard the other side (which hopefully this article is going to help you do), and third because they find it difficult to argue against a law that says something like You shall not murder. Let's look at that.

"How can you not keep that law? Christians don't murder! Is it ok for me to sleep with your wife?"

I used to say that same thing, and I thought it was clever, too. It is true that it is not acceptable to murder, steal, bear false witness, or commit adultery in the New Covenant ...but not because of the Ten Commandments. It has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments.

"xHWA, you're contradicting yourself. You don't have to keep them, but you do have to keep them?"

This is no contradiction. The law is gone, but morality remains.
I recommend Miller Jones' article "Washed, Sanctified, Justified, and Glorified in Jesus".

Oh, bet your backside morality remains!! Revelation 21: 8 is not the verse the "Buddy Christ" type like to cite. On the other hand, legalists assume the Old Covenant law is the only place we can find morality. That is not so!

"There is another."
-Yoda (It's not a Vader quote, but it will have to do.)

The Old and the New have similarities, but not because laws from the Old have come forward. How can the two be similar without the laws coming forward? Because they have the same author. There is something above and beyond the law. It has nothing to do with the Old Covenant law, and everything to do with love.

(ROM. 13: 10) Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
(JAS. 2: 8) "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you do well."
(I COR. 13) [read the whole chapter]

The terms of the two Great Covenants have similarities, not because they are the same, nor because anything "came forward", but because above them and beyond them is one and the same principle of love.

"But x, all the Commandments are reiterated in the New Testament."

All except the Sabbath command, you mean. This does not indicate nine of the Ten have come forward. It indicates the same principle of love dictates both Covenants.

When the Ten are mentioned in the New Testament, they are being used as examples. If you look closely, you will see the Apostles quoting the Old Covenant regularly. That doesn't mean it all comes forward. We just read Romans 13: 10, but let's read verses just prior:

(ROM. 13: 8-9) 8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Do you see how Paul is just quoting them to make a point? He isn't bringing them forward, he is showing how love fulfills them. His point is love, not law. Even when James quotes from the Ten in James 2, his point is really about mercy. Isn't mercy really about love? Read James 2: 8 again. The Apostles use the law to help us understand a point, then direct our eyes above the law, to something greater - to love.

Where did the Apostles get this idea? They got it from Jesus.

(LUK. 10: 25-28) 25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?” 27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’ ” 28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”

The lawyer was quoting Deuteronomy 6: 4-5 and Leviticus 19: 18. These are the two great commandments. Jesus responds, "do this [love] and you will live.” Jesus reiterates this same thing in Mark 12:

(MAR. 12: 29-31) 29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. 31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.

Remember, the Ten are mistranslated as "commandments". These two which Jesus cites, He calls  commandments. They are greater than the Ten. Greater than the Ten?? Yes! It is no coincidence this information is recorded twice.
And where did Jesus get this idea? From His nature.

(I JON. 4: 7-8) 7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Two different covenants, for two different peoples, for two different purposes - both initiated by one and the same God, who IS love. Of course they are going to have similarities because of God. That moral nature is most certainly reflected in the Old Covenant law. God gave commandments and statues for Israel's good because He loves. Same as now.

At the outset of this post, I emphasized how the Old Covenant is gone. Here, I emphasize how it is similar to the New. I do this so we can discuss something.

I think this is where people stumble. Most everyone understands that there is a need for morality both in the Old and the New Covenants. Something deep inside them just seems to know this. They see that morality itself in its essence has not changed. They know murder was always wrong and always will be (so long as there is mortality). They see points in the Old are practically identical to points in the New. They know that morality is an attribute that flows directly from God's own being. And here they get confused, stumbling over how moral law does not continue forward. The thinking goes like this: "God is eternal, so morality is eternal, so the moral law must be eternal." On the surface, it seems very reasonable. But no.
We went over that in the article "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VI".

The answer to this puzzle is not that the moral law comes forward, but that love is eternal, and love is expressed in very similar ways in both Covenants, even if that isn't obvious.

Love predated the law. Love was in the law. Love is above the law. Love continues past the law.

As we see in Luke, even the lawyer knew the real crux of the law. This was during the Old Covenant period. He read the law and saw the most important parts were to love God and love your neighbor - in the Old Covenant period. That isn't obvious, so this guy was astute. He chose love, and the Author agreed. What this clearly means is moral law was always a subset of love. Jesus said this very thing.

(MAT. 22: 40) On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

In the New Covenant, we are called to look higher than the law. We are called to participate in the essence of our Lord, as part of His spiritual body. We are not called to participate in laws, but directly in that moral nature of God. God doesn't need the law to be moral, and neither does a mature Christian. You don't need the law to be moral any more than you need a shadow to cast a body (COL. 2: 16).
You need love. You need to participate in Him. And how do we participate in him? Faith!

The New Covenant laws are faith and love.

When the scribe reiterated what Jesus said, what was our Lord's response? "You are not far from the Kingdom of God" (v. 34). Not that he had reached it, but that he was close. His law keeping didn't get him there, just like the Rich Young Ruler who kept the law but went away when Jesus showed him there was more to it. Or think of the Pharisees who kept the law fastidiously yet Jesus had little praise for them. Why? Because they were all missing key ingredients. The scribe and the ruler had law but not faith, and the Pharisees had law but not love. They all went away.
For all their law keeping, they still went away.

Now that we've looked at similarities, perhaps it might help to illustrate differences one more time.

Is it ok to rape, or to be arrogant and demeaning, or to do a 'hit and run', or to do a 'bait and switch', or to entrap someone, or to kidnap someone, or to bully someone into harming themselves, or to gaslight someone, or to abandon your spouse, or to take bribes, or to judge unfairly, or to charge someone full price for shoddy work? No! Yet, I don't see any of that listed in the Ten Commandments. Read the Ten again. Guess what's not there: deceit. Is deceit wrong, then? I bet you are going to say 'yes'. Why? Because you just know? No. Because it violates love! You can blow a mile-wide crater into morality and not violate the Ten Commandments, but you will have violated love every single time.
So, which do you suppose is the superior moral system?

DON'T WE KEEP THE TEN ANYWAY?

"Tell me this, xHWA. If we are loving, and love has the same ends as keeping the Ten Commandments - we are loyal to God, we aren't murdering, bearing false witness, stealing, or committing adultery - then, aren't we keeping the Ten Commandments?"
Fantastic question! Yes! ...and no. It depends on your approach.

If you approach this from the perspective of grace and faith, yes, love fulfills the spirit of the law. You have kept every requirement of the Ten without needing the Ten. You've done it! Welcome to mature Christianity. So, yes.
But if you approach this from the perspective of legalism, no, due to our sinful nature you have failed and the law brings a curse to you.

"Come on, x, you're contradicting yourself. I can fail to keep the law by keeping the law?"

Correct. That was no contradiction. It really does matter. 

If it didn't, then Paul wouldn't have written Galatians. He wouldn't have said things like, "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?" (GAL. 4: 21) Or, "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." (GAL. 5: 4)

Those are heavy words! Your approach matters.

Is that what you think you've done, kept the Commandments? You sat on your hands one day out of seven? You didn't murder, so therefore you've kept the commandment? Or you didn't commit adultery, therefore you've kept the commandment? How easy it would be if that were the standard! But it's not.

In Matthew 5: 21-30, Jesus shows that sin is of the heart. Violation of the Commandments happens long before you ever act out anything. If you lust, you're done. If you anger without cause, you're done. Game over. Fail! The game is already over for you. There is no going back to the starting line because the game is over.
By that standard, we've all failed .. me too! I've miserably failed. Worse than you, I'd bet. For all my blogging and preaching about love, I've blown it for the law. I am guilty under the law! Mea culpa! And I have no hope left in the law.
More law, or rather more failure, will get us all precisely nowhere.

All this talk about we've kept the Commandments just because we didn't kill is nonsense. Herbert Armstrong knew this. He preached this very thing, and he was right! (See? We admit when he was right.)
But then he would go on to say in the New Covenant the law is harder. No. Wrong. Matthew 5 is during the Old Covenant period, not the New. This was always the standard. Just read Zechariah 8: 17.
Herbert Armstrong also taught, "Jesus made the law harder to keep, then provides us the Holy Spirit so we can keep it." Again, wrong. Why don't you keep it, then? Is the Holy Spirit a failure? Do you not have enough Holy Spirit? Why are you praying for forgiveness if you've done such a good job? Why are you looking towards the Day of Atonement? Because you know this fails just as much as I do. We go over this in "Common Legalist Arguments - Part I".

Making it harder was not what Jesus was doing. He was merely stating what the standard had been all along. He was making His audience aware of what the standard actually was.
It was always this hard!

No wonder Isaiah says, "But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags" (ISA. 64: 6). No wonder Peter calls law keeping, "...a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" (ACT. 15: 10).

That's right. Even at our best, we do not rate. Not even close. You might think you're keeping the Ten, but there's a decent chance you're not. Did we not just read Paul, who said, "you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace" (GAL. 5: 4)?

The same Paul who said that also said this:

(ROM. 9: 30-32) 30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

And that is why Paul said this:

(GAL. 2: 18) For if I build again those things which I destroyed [the law], I make myself a transgressor.

Israel failed to keep the law by keeping the law. We will fail to keep the law by keeping the law.

So, this is a yes and a no. Approach this through legalism and you will fail, but approach it through faith and grace and you will fulfill the whole law.

Now that I've said that, I want to make something abundantly clear ---
I am not saying that merely keeping a law is what causes you to fail. For example, merely keeping a seventh-day Sabbath does not cause you to fail. People on one side say keeping Sunday is a sin. People on the other side say keeping Saturday is a sin. Both are wrong. What I am saying is that looking to the law for righteousness causes you to fail. For example, demanding that Christians must keep a seventh-day Sabbath, and thus holding yourself up as superior to others because you do, will cause you to fail. Once the idea of "earn" or "merit" or "qualify" is added to law, you've failed. If keeping a day helps you feel closer to God, do it. If you are a Jewish convert and you see the law as your heritage, do it. If eating pork harms your conscience, don't do it. Only don't think it gets you anywhere with God. And by all means, do not judge and condemn your fellow Christian who disagrees (ROM. 14: 6).

THE ONLY WAY

"But x, you are violating Matthew 5: 19 by breaking the commandments and teaching others to do so."

Au contraire!

There is but one way to accomplish our goals, oh beloved of God. One and only one. There is no other. That way is faith.

The scribes and Pharisees were fastidious! If you recall my post "Tithing - You're Doing It Wrong" you see how how fastidious they were. They were the penultimate law keepers, yet they blew it. Our Lord's harshest criticism, as always throughout the Bible, was reserved for the leadership. They failed the law because they pursued the law as an end unto itself. They kept the Sabbath yet failed at Sabbath-keeping, as Aphraphat the Syrian abundantly pointed out (see the article "Quartodecimans - Were They Law-Keepers?"). Why? The law was more important than mercy. They neglected the weightier matters of faith and love.

Even so, Jesus said this about them:

(MAT. 5: 20) For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Why?
You see, He was paying them a backhanded compliment (that means it wasn't really a compliment). All of their law keeping, which the people were impressed by, didn't impress Jesus. The righteousness of law keeping is not what He wanted.

How can our righteousness exceed theirs, then? The one way and only way is the righteousness of faith ... the righteousness of Jesus Christ. How does Jesus' righteousness make you more righteous than the Pharisees? Let Paul tell us.

(II COR. 5: 21) For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

His righteousness becomes our righteousness by faith.
By faith not law?
Yes! The righteousness God seeks is not our righteousness, but HIS own righteousness attributed to us by faith.

(PHP. 9: 9-11) 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

In Phillipians 9, Paul, one of the very Pharisees that Jesus was talking about, gives us a long list of his genealogical, educational, and legal bona fides. He counts them all as dung! Why? Because no matter how good a human is, no matter how credentialed, no matter how careful, NONE of that can compare to the righteousness of God. God's own righteousness can only come to us one way: by faith.

(ROM. 1: 17) For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
(ROM. 3: 20-22) 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe...
(ROM. 4: 5) However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
(2 PET. 1: 1) Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours
(GAL. 3: 10-14) 10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Paul mentions Abraham. What of Abraham?

(ROM. 4: 13-14) 13 It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless.

It was always by faith. The whole time.

It is the righteousness of Jesus Christ that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. In Matthew 5: 20, Jesus was really talking about Himself. Only by being joined with Him through faith can His righteousness be gifted to us, and there alone can we surpass the scribes and Pharisees.

Remember, our righteousness is like filthy rags, and Jesus did not make the law harder because that was always the standard. Well, the standard is a lot harder yet.

(MAT. 5: 48) Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

"Oh, xHWA! How in Heaven or on earth can imperfect beings like us possibly be perfect like God the Father is perfect? I can't do that!"

You're right. You can't. It is impossible
...except when the blood of Christ washes us clean and God's own righteousness is attributed to us when we become one with Jesus through faith.

It is the only way.

So, cheer up! Lift up your face to the Son and be glad. He has you in His hands. Just believe.

(MAT. 19: 26b) “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

If you are still looking at your shortcomings and wondering what this all means, you need to understand something.
As with many other things in the Bible, it is partly completed now and fully completed in the future. It's not that we are perfect in this lifetime, but when God looks at us He sees His own perfection attributed to us. That's the agreement. It is attributed to us until such a time when we will be fully made perfect (EPH. 1: 13-14). He sees our potential. A potential that is not achievable without faith. So be content for now, and believe.

"...by faith from first to last."

You are one with Him by faith. By faith you are attached to Jesus the Vine, and you, the branch off that Vine, will bear fruit. First faith, then fruit. Or, if you will, first faith, then works.

Saving faith → Grafted in → In-dwelling of Holy Spirit → Attributed righteousness of God → Do works of love → Bear fruits of love.  That is how it works in the New Covenant.

Am I throwing Matthew 5: 19 out the window? No. I am not telling you to break the commandments. I am telling you the only way you can possibly hope to keep them as expected.

CONCLUSION

There is a confusion going on of the Ten Commandments and the word commandments in the New Testament. The Ten never should have been translated commandments in the first place. The word commandments in the N.T. can be any command, and most often does not refer to the Ten.

The Ten are covenant law, but Old Covenant law not New Covenant law. They are only 10 out of 613 equal terms. Break any one and you've broken them all. Those who are under the Old Covenant must keep it's terms (and that is precisely nobody). Those who are under the New Covenant must keep its terms (and that is all Christianity). If you try to keep the Old Covenant while in the New Covenant you are sitting on a fence satisfying neither.

What are the laws for the New Covenant? Faith and love. Law is not the essential component, love is. Love, inspired and directed by the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you because you are joined to Jesus by faith. Never has righteousness come from the law. Jesus took your sins on Himself so He could attribute His righteousness to you by faith. This is the only way any of us can achieve the righteousness God is looking for: His own. It is the only way.

The moral standards in the Old aren't really that different from the New. There are definite similarities. Those similarities do not come from law, but from the same source as the law: love. When you look at a New Covenant person vs and Old Covenant person, you won't see much moral difference. But try to achieve this by law, and you will fail.

If you've read and understood this post, you should re-read Galatians. I recommend you do that as soon as possible.

James seems to be the star Apostle of the law-minded person. Why, Fred Coulter even wrote his own version of the Bible so he could put James before Paul. (No, that isn't the 'original' order.) James seems to say Old Covenant law things, but when we look closely, he isn't really saying that at all. In the end, James concludes his idea with this:

(JAS. 2: 12) So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.

This is the second time James mentions the "perfect law of liberty" (JAS. 1: 25). Where will you find that law? Not in the Old Covenant! This is a New Covenant idea.
James turns out to be speaking of the same things Paul did, and what I am trying to speak right now. Faith, love, liberty, grace, mercy, charity, patience, forgiveness... these are the New Covenant standards. Not individual laws, but big concepts. Concepts that flow straight from God's nature.

New Covenant standards are spiritually mature standards. Mature is not easy. Adulting is hard! It's not simple. I am not saying "remove the law and life gets simple." Nor am I saying "remove the law and Christianity becomes a Wild West free-for-all, where you do exhaust your every lust and turn to Jesus for the forgiveness you knew you would need afterward." I am saying, follow the guidance of the in-dwelling Holy Spirit. If you do that, you will no longer need laws.

So, do you have to keep the Ten? No. But if you step into the New Covenant in faith and follow the Holy Spirit in love, you will fulfill the spirit of the whole law, and with Christ's own righteousness attributed to you. In faith and love, you will keep them in a way you never could if you just attempted to keep them to the letter.

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

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

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

Common Legalist Arguments - Part VI

In my last post in this series, which was but a few moments ago in geological time, we went over the idea that if portions of the law predated Sinai then those things are binding after Sinai. We saw that this argument does not work. The point is to find a way to bind Christians to the Sabbath, or tithing. The Sabbath did not long predate Sinai but other things did, like animal sacrifice. That existed from the very start. Cain and Abel, Noah, and Abraham all practiced animal sacrifice. We know animal sacrifice is no longer required today. Abraham was circumcised, and circumcision is no longer required today. Therefore, it is not true that if things were done prior to the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai then they are required today.

This time, I would like to address what I consider to be a very strange approach that many take to validate their views on law keeping - claiming that since God is eternal then the law is eternal, too.
I have recently started seeing this claim quite frequently.

ARGUMENT #6
God is eternal, therefore the law is eternal.

I don't know how many of you are familiar with logic. I think anyone who wants to think deeply on any subject at all should be familiar with logic. Logic helps us form our thoughts correctly.

It is especially good to learn about logical fallacies. These are guidelines to help you recognize and avoid poorly formed arguments. Understanding logical fallacies help us to understand such things as why name-calling is not a valid argument. "You're wrong because you're a Nimrod worshipper," falls down for specific reasons. It's good to understand why.

One particularly useful logical fallacy is "non-sequitur". That's Latin for "does not follow". This is when someone mistakenly claims one thing is caused by another unrelated thing.
For example, a blatant non-sequitur would be, "It just rained, therefore I need to buy a cat."

What in the world does the one have to do with the other? Nothing. You might search and find maybe one instance where the person had some good reason for buying a cat after a rainstorm. It's possible. But finding one instance does not mean purchasing a cat naturally flows directly from rainy days, as if "rain, therefore cat". You could say, "It just rained therefore the grass is wet." That follows naturally. Wet grass does come from rain. "Rain, therefore wet." Or, you might say, "It just rained, therefore wipe your feet when you come inside." Dirty feet come from mud and wet grass. That follows. But buying cats? No.

In this same way, saying the law is eternal because God is eternal is a non sequitur.

We will grant God is eternal. He is. But so what is that to the law? God is not the law and the law is not God, so what does God's eternality have to do with the law? Nothing. It does not follow that because God has an attribute, therefore the law also has that attribute. The law doesn't get that attribute any more than you or I do. God is merciful, was the law merciful? No (HEB. 10: 28). The law had no provision for mercy. The law might have told humans to be merciful, but the law itself was not merciful. God is graceful, but the law was not. Grace came through Jesus (JON. 1: 17). God has attributes the law did not, so why does God being eternal make the law eternal? It does not.

Certain big concepts flow by necessity from God's nature - goodness, wisdom, justice, love, intellect, etc. The specifics of Torah law do not necessarily flow by necessity from God's being in the way things like mercy, authority, or numbers do. It does not follow that because God is good therefore a shofar must be blown on the first day of the seventh month.
"God is good, therefore shofar" is just as non sequitur as "rain, therefore cat".

The entire argument is at its very core completely illogical.

ETERNAL IN THE PAST

Knowing that right now someone is out there complaining, "Logic is created by men and doesn't apply to God because words words words....", I will move on to looking into the workings of the claim. If the law proceeds from God's being necessarily, then it has to be eternal in the past because God is eternal in the past.

Some laws cannot possibly have been eternal in the past. Have you read the list of Torah laws? Any national law for Israel could not possibly have been eternal. You cannot have a national law for Israel before there was an Israel. You cannot have a law about tassels on garments before there were garments or weaving.

Any ceremonial law could not be eternal in the past. You cannot tithe before there were humans and increase. You cannot rest before there was creation and work. You cannot sacrifice animals before there were animals, or burn incense before there was incense, or travel to Jerusalem three times in a year before there was a Jerusalem or a year.

If the law was eternal in the past, then how can Paul claim it came 430 years after God made a promise to Abraham (GAL. 3: 17)? He could not. Paul did not say it was written down, or given, 430 years later. Paul's point was unambiguously that the promise predated and superseded the law. He then goes on to the law "was added" (v. 19). In Romans 5: 13 he says "until the law" and "there is no law". How can Paul speak this way if the law was eternal in the past? He cannot.

Anyone who continues to claim the national and ceremonial laws are past eternal have created an issue. Laws that exist before the things they govern exist. So, what are the implications of this? This can only mean one of two things:
1) There are untold myriads of hidden laws out there, existing for no good reason, governing things that have yet to come into existence, or might never come into existence. We have no way of knowing what legions of laws there might be. Clearly, this is ridiculous.
2) The 613 Torah laws are perfect and are the only ones that flow from God's being. No more and no less. For some reason, because God is such and such, therefore the thread in Israelites and only Israelites clothing had to be blue. "God, therefore blue thread." But not other colors of thread, and not other people. Blue is the perfect color because God is such and such. For some reason, God is such and such, therefore the High Priest is prohibited from marrying a widow. That's just how things had to be. "God, therefore no widows." Clearly, this is also ridiculous.

I am not saying the laws are ridiculous. I am saying making them past eternal and tying them directly to God's being is ridiculous.

The sheer absurdity of this claim should be coming into focus.

ETERNAL IN THE FUTURE

If the law proceeds from God's being necessarily, then it has to be eternal in the future because God is eternal in the future and unchanging. If the law is eternal in the future, then no law can be removed or altered.

Are parts of the Old Covenant law no longer binding? Yes. Name one. Circumcision. Then the law isn't eternal. Most people will readily admit the ceremonial and the national laws are gone. That's 2/3 of the law gone! The law cannot be both eternal and gone. That violates the law of non-contradiction. Hebrews 7: 12 says:

(HEB. 7: 12) For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

What! A change? Yes, the unchanging law has changed. That means it's not eternal.

When Jesus died, the veil to the Holy of Holies was torn in two (MAT. 27: 51), signifying the way to God was now open. No more Day of Atonement with its ritualistic national cleansing would be necessary (HEB. 10: 19-22). None of these laws are eternal in the future.

But it wasn't merely some slight alteration. The entire Levitical system, with its Temple and its ceremonies and its tithes and offerings and its appointments and its holiness rituals and its condemnation, was removed. Not just changed , removed. Read II Corinthians 3: 7-16. The old ministry and all its laws have passed away, replaced by a whole new system. Therefore, not a single one of those many laws can be eternal in the future.

So, not only is the premise incorrect that the law is eternal, but it is easy to see the argument "God is eternal, therefore the law is eternal," is non-sequitur.

THE SABBATH DAY

Let's not be coy here. We all know the one law many people are really after is the Sabbath day.

When we start defining what is moral law, we have to start defining why certain things are moral. Once we start scrutinizing the Sabbath, we see it has no moral component at all. The only thing in the world it has going for it is that it's in the Ten Commandments. We explored that in the article. "Is Ceremonial Law Removed?". The argument "Ten Commandments, therefore moral" is just as non-sequitur as "God, therefore the law is eternal". Let's briefly scrutinize the eternality of the Sabbath.

If the moral law is eternal, and the Sabbath is a moral law, then the Sabbath is eternal. Yay! But...

Genesis 1: 5, God created day and night. How can the Sabbath day exist before there was day? Let alone the seventh one. It cannot. Most Sabbatarians point at Genesis 2: 2 to justify the Sabbath day. How can we look here in Genesis for the Sabbath yet it existed eternally before that?

In the Kingdom there will be no day or night or need for the sun (REV. 21:22 - 22: 5). No day or night means no weekly Sabbath day. The Sabbath day is utterly dependent on day and night - by definition and by law! It could not exist before there was a sun, and it cannot exist after the sun is gone. How can the Sabbath be eternal when we can demonstrate from the Bible that the concept of day and night are not eternal?
You could also look towards the point of the Sabbath - rest. How can we have a rest when there is no longer any toil to rest from? The definition of a Sabbath rest is not simply rest, it is rest from assigned regular duties. No toil, no point to rest. Just like in Eden. What did Adam have to rest from? He was in paradise! So it will be in the future.

This is an exercise in contradictions.

Now, we have but three choices:
1) Revelation is wrong. If the Sabbath is eternal because God is eternal, then day and night must also be eternal because the Sabbath needs them. So, you get an eternal Sabbath at the cost of Revelation being wrong.
2) The Sabbath is not a moral law. If all moral laws are eternal, and the Sabbath has a beginning and an end, then the Sabbath is not a moral law. Because day and night had a beginning and will have an end, we cannot say the Sabbath is eternal. If all moral laws are eternal then the Sabbath cannot be a moral law.
3) The Sabbath is redefined contrary to the law and reason into something utterly unlike what we read in the law. Some people do this in order to claim the Sabbath exists outside of time (e.g., "angels keep the Sabbath" - proof please). That's not what the law says, though. We are talking about the law.

Take your pick.

MORAL LAW

Maybe by this point you are thinking, perhaps the national and ceremonial laws aren't eternal but the moral law has to be. Supposedly the moral law flows naturally from God's own moral nature, therefore the moral law is eternal because God's moral nature is unchanging. Then why not say that? Why not claim "the moral law" instead of "the law"?

I'll tell you why. People do not make this argument to get others to stop murdering or coveting. What they want is to justify the non-moral laws on their cherry-picked list, like tithing, meats laws, holy days, and the weekly Sabbath.

Let's ask that tough question, though. Is the moral law eternal?

What about the law against adultery?
That's a law everyone can agree is a moral law. How could that exist before there was marriage? In the future, no one will marry (MAT. 22: 30). The law about adultery does not exist if marriage does not exist. Just like the Sabbath without days.
The moral law prohibiting adultery is not eternal.

What about the law against murder?
How can the law against murder exist before humans could die, or continue on after all humans are immortal? All humanity will eventually be immortal (I COR. 15: 26). The law about murder does not exist if mortality does not exist.
The moral law prohibiting murder is not eternal.

What about the law against covetousness?
How can the law against covetousness exist after the fullness of the Kingdom has come, and we have fully received the inheritance we are promised in Jesus, and we are fully possessors of all things? How do we covet what is already ours? In the future there will be no such thing as limited resources. Everyone will have more than plenty, and then some. The law about covetousness does not exist if limited resources does not exist.
The moral law prohibiting covetousness is not eternal.

What about the law against idolatry?
How can the law against idolatry exist after everyone lives in the direct presence of the true and living God? Who among us, when we live in the fullness of the Kingdom of God, would ever, ever turn back to worshiping anything less? It's absurd! The law against idolatry does not exist if the worship of other gods/things/etc does not exist.
The moral law prohibiting idolatry is not eternal. This one has the best chance of being eternal, but it seems somewhat childish to me to presume perfected beings will need a law.

"But those acts are still wrong even if they are impossible to commit," someone is no doubt saying right now. That's like saying it's a sin to kill a dinosaur. There are no dinosaurs, but it's still a sin to kill one. Makes sense? No. And here we go, back to myriads of unknown laws governing things that do not and might never exist.

"The law is eternal..." STOP! No, it isn't. Not even the moral laws are eternal.
Turns out eternality is not an attribute of moral law and this claim never mattered in the first place. This entire argument is a pointless exercise in futility, and a distraction.

This is a problem some people solve by leaving it obscure and refusing to deal with it. Somewhat reminds me of the situation in my last post, "Willful Ignorance". It is easier to bury the head or to make sweeping generalities than to investigate it and realize you've invested so much of your time, energy, and money in a mistake.

LACK OF EVIDENCE

Now that I feel we've examined plenty of evidence against the eternality of the law - where is the evidence supporting this claim? Where is the proof it is eternal?

In the "Willful Ignorance" post, I complained about a person who was demanding a proof text so he could avoid studying a topic that threatened his preferred interpretations of scripture. Here today, I am demanding some kind of evidence, but not so I can avoid the evidence, rather because I would like some and cannot find any. Show me a proof text that the law necessarily emanates directly from God. Show me the proof that the law existed eternally in the past, or will exist eternally in the future.

There is none. This is what we call a baseless assertion. Something is just said to be true and that's that.

It only makes sense that the ones making the claim should prove their claim.

THE SOURCE OF THE LAW

If the law is not eternal, and does not proceed from God necessarily as if to say "God, therefore law", then where does the law come from? This is a critical piece of understanding for you. Critical!

>>>>>     It isn't God therefore law, it's Covenant therefore law.     <<<<<

The law is not an attribute of God, as if to say the law exists because of God's nature. Also, the law does not exist as an entity all on its own. People get caught up partly because the body of law was given a name and is called Torah. Torah is not some thing that exists all on its own apart from anything else. God did not come down to Sinai to give Moses two tablets, then went away for a bit, and returned later on with a covenant to keep those laws. No. He came to Sinai and gave the Covenant ...which consists of the laws, and the blessings and the cursings.

If you want more on why the Ten Commandments are the Old Covenant, read our article "If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments".

In Armstrongism, people regularly take a verse out of its context, create a whole new context for it, then hold it up as proof of their point. We call this "proof texting. The law has a context, too. That context is the Old Covenant. The law is not an attribute of God but of the Old Covenant.
It is wrong to extract the law from its proper context then invent a whole new context for it. "Here ya go! I've taken the law out of the Covenant, and now it stands all on its own and it's eternal and it's binding on everyone. Yay!" No. That's not how this works.

The Old Covenant law only exists within the bounds of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is the framework within which the law exists, along with blessings for keeping them and curses for breaking them. The Covenant is what makes it binding. We cannot just extract the law from its context, give it a whole new context (like it stands all on its own), and then proclaim what a wonderful thing we've done. Doing that might it look like we've gained ourselves a Sabbath day, but in reality it butchers the narrative and dissolves the law. It's the doctrinal version of proof texting.

And what does Paul say about the Covenant?

(HEB. 8: 13) In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

And so it is.

So, I say once again, it isn't God therefore law, it's Covenant therefore law.

RIGHTEOUSNESS APART FROM THE LAW

I would leave it at that, but I know there's someone reading this who is still bothered by something. Something is still irritating the back of their mind. You are bothered by the relation between God's morality and our responsibility to behave appropriately, and how that correlates to moral law. So, I want to finish up by fleshing out this moral law thing a little bit more. I think it deserves the attention.

God is a god of goodness. Not all things are goodness. There is good and there is evil. Anyone who is on "team God" agrees to behave in a manner consistent with God's morally good nature. We call this morality.

One side says the moral law must remain because God's nature is moral and the law is the expression of that morality. This is why some people say the law is eternal. They are trying to explain this relationship between God's morally good nature and our obligations to behave in a morally good manner. They believe law, specifically the Old Covenant law, is the only way that morality can be expressed.
The other side (including me) says the Old Covenant law was but now is no longer the expression of that morality, and the Covenant is gone along with all its laws ...yet morality remains.

How? How can you remove the law that says "you shall not murder" and yet murder remains wrong?? How can there be morality but not be a specific moral law??? Does not compute!

Remember in the article "What Use Is The Old Law?" when we saw how sin existed before the law? 

(ROM. 5: 13-14a) 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...

Sin exists apart from the law. The law did not create or define sin, it only gave a knowledge of sin.

Just like sin, righteousness also exists apart from the law.

(ROM. 3: 21) But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law

The very idea that the moral law is necessary for morality is contradicted here. Furthermore, Paul openly says the law is not where righteousness comes from.

(GAL. 2: 21) I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.

Sin doesn't come from the moral law, AND righteousness doesn't come from the moral law? How?? To be as blunt as I can - the law is not the essential component that many people think it is.

God doesn't need law to be good. That's obvious! Goodness is simply one of His attributes. He is goodness. But if God can do it without law, then law is not this essential thing people assume it to be. There is something greater than the moral law, something that does emanate directly from God's nature: love.

(I JON. 4: 8) He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

You must divorce both sin and righteousness from the Old Covenant law. Laws are not the only way to achieve moral goodness. You can tap directly into God's nature.

It's not like the ones who insist on the moral law are completely wrong. The moral law was good. It was a reflection of morality. There are definite similarities between the Old and New Covenants. But the Old Covenant law was only meant to be for a certain people in a certain place for a certain time until a certain goal could be achieved, and that goal was the first coming of Jesus Christ (GAL. 3: 19, 25).

The problem is people put all of their eggs in the basket of law when there is a better basket. The Ten Commandments aren't the only way to define morality. The entire moral law in the Old Covenant isn't the only way to define morality. Can they help? Sure! But they aren't essential. There is another way. The moral laws of the Old Covenant were replaced by something even older, even greater, even more foundational. What came after them is what came before them. The new law is the oldest law. Specifically, the Royal Law of Love.

(ROM. 13: 8) Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
(ROM. 13: 10) Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
(JAS. 2: 8) If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well
(I JON. 4: 21) And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

We are not called to lists of laws, but to liberty. Even so, morality remains.

(GAL. 5: 13-14) 13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

When Paul says, "the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law" THIS is what he means. He means the law witnessed to love. (MAR. 12: 29-31)

Is "love" as specific as we would like it to be? No. We like instructions, details, particulars. Finding few in the New Testament, we start digging in the Old Covenant, and there we stumble if we aren't careful, not understanding covenants. Please read our article "What Use Is The Old Law?"

So, how then do we know what to do? We grow up and no longer need the school master, that's how. We walk by faith. We follow the Holy Spirit.

(ROM. 7: 6) But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
(GAL. 5: 16) I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

All this talk about getting to the more foundational principle of love means the law is not the eternal, essential component it is claimed to be.

If you really want to burn your biscuits, read our articles on how our righteousness before God does not come from obeying the New Covenant laws, either. Our righteousness comes from our participation in Jesus Christ by faith. It is His righteousness imputed to us that makes us righteous before God. We are considered righteous because He is righteous, and He is in us. Any obedience to the royal law of love is merely a result of our relationship with God, not some cause of it.
I suggest you read Martha's article "Abraham's Faith and Works - or Faith and Parachutes, Part 3". She knocks this idea out of the park.

But that is too much for this already lengthy article. I leave you with what I've already said.

CONCLUSION

"God is eternal, therefore the law is eternal," is illogical and incorrect. God is not the law, and the law is not God. Righteousness does not come from the law.

The laws of the Old Covenant, good as they were, are not mandatory results of God's nature, as if to say "God therefore Old Covenant law". The moral law does not exist as necessary extensions of God's nature. Sin and righteousness exist apart from the law. So, we cannot say that just because God is eternal, or even God's nature is moral eternally, therefore the law is eternal. It does not follow.

The assertion is baseless. No evidence is given for why the law is eternal, it is just an empty claim people make.

I have shown how the law cannot have existed eternally in the past, and cannot exist eternally into the future, therefore the law is not eternal. The premise being false means the conclusion is false.

Every single Old Covenant law, whether ceremonial, national, or moral, was a term of that covenant. When that Old Covenant ended, all of its terms were dissolved. We are now under a New Covenant, with new terms. We are called to liberty, but not to vice.

What, then, defines righteousness if not the moral law? The answer is faith, love, and our relationship with God in-dwelling. God is not law, God is love.

Love finds its expression in good works. We were made for this! But these are results of our relationship with God. They are results of righteousness, not causes of it. All of this is apart from law. 

You probably need an ice pack on your head after this post. I can relate. None of this made sense to me at first, either. It is supremely difficult for a person conditioned to thinking in terms of law to stop that and think in terms of faith. I really do recommend you read Martha's series. It will help.

I leave you with a prayer. I pray that God helps you to understand, after prayerful consideration. God bless you.

[Also see Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, & Part V]

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

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

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

Willful Ignorance

I have a little rant to go on today. I don't usually do this, but something's gotten under my skin and I feel the need to express it.

You may have heard the saying, "Sincere, but sincerely mistaken." It gets tossed around like a ball in a backyard. We have disagreements and we claim the other person is wrong. It's natural. We believe what we believe because we sincerely believe it. I cannot imagine anyone would hold an opinion they know is wrong. At some point in this life, we are all wrong. We don't like it, and we like even less to admit it, but it's true. To be wise is to recognize this at all times and to forever double-check yourself. Wisdom takes council and learns. It doesn't blow in the wind of every opinion, but it learns. To learn is to correct oneself. Some people take their aversion to being wrong to an extreme, however. There are people who make their entire stand on their sense of being right. They stubbornly, and often willfully, refuse to look into other viewpoints and contrasting evidence. It is almost as if whatever their opinion is on a matter, that is God's opinion too. I go into this a little in the article My Opinion Is God's Truth.

But this time I've run into something I just need to write about so I can get it off my chest - one of the most blatant examples of willful ignorance I think I've ever seen.

I had a person just recently make the claim, "If you can't give me a verse, then your case doesn't exist." In other words, if you cannot find a verse or two that clearly states your entire case, then the entire case doesn't exist.
Were they right? No idea is valid if you cannot find an isolated verse to state that case?

At first it might sound reasonable. You should have Biblical evidence for your claims. I agree we should! Who would disagree with that? As Bereans Did is built on it. But when we look a little deeper at what is really being claimed - you need a proof text for any claim - then what at first sounds wise starts to reveal itself.

There are many things we each hold to be true that take far more than one or two verses to prove or disprove. The Bible has many verses!

For example, prove to me in one verse that the Messiah was to die and rise again.
Now, before you go off on Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and Zechariah 12, remember you're building a case not providing single verses, but more importantly none of those chapters say the word Messiah. And before you throw Daniel 9: 24 at me, that is a single verse (well done on that), but it only mentions dying and doesn't say anything about rising.
We know now, after the fact, that Jesus is the Messiah, and Jesus did die and rise again, and these selections (plus many more) all foretold things Jesus would accomplish - but we cannot simply find one verse that sums it all up nicely. We have to put together a case from various evidence; a body of evidence. You in fact will not find most of what Jesus did being associated with the Messiah within the Old Testament. Some Jews complain about that. Thing is, they're technically right. That is because Jesus is far more than just the Messiah only. He is the Messiah ben David and the Messiah ben Joseph, also the son of man, the prince, the son of Adam, the son of David, the branch, the prophet Moses foretold, the suffering servant, the righteous sufferer, and etc. All of the imagery of all of those prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus. We are so used to Jesus being the Messiah that we lump it all together under the term Messiah, but there was a lot more than Messiah going on there. You will not get the full picture of what Jesus was to accomplish simply by looking at verses about the Messiah, let alone a single verse only.

How do you know this? You study. Hopefully you listen to others who have already done most of the heavy lifting for you. How do you demonstrate this? You build a case. How would you convince a non-Christian of this? Not through proof-texting!

So, were they right that no idea is valid if you cannot find a proof text to state that case?
Of course not.

What sounded reasonable at first now reveals itself as passive aggressive. What sounded like a request for evidence turns out to be quite the opposite. It was nothing more than a means to remain willfully ignorant. Not a request for evidence, but a demand there can be none at all.

If you still suspect I might be misunderstanding the person, you should know I left some context out. I told the person about a point of history and I suggested they research it. I even gave the person some information and links to get them started in the right direction. They refused, and said they didn't want to study into it. When I questioned why they wouldn't want to study a topic, they demanded I provide a verse or the case doesn't exist.

Perhaps you are wondering what the topic was. It was the Godhead in the Old Testament. Prove that case in a single verse. It can't be done. Which is why I pointed them to evidence. Which is why they balked.

Now can you see how the demand for a verse was really just a way to remain willfully ignorant? They didn't want to read. They didn't want to study. They didn't want to challenge themselves. They didn't want to learn. In their mind, if they refused to look at the evidence then the evidence doesn't exist.

This all reminded me of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. If you can't see it, it assumes it can't see you. Anyone here a fan of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? No?
Moving on.

My point is refusing to look at evidence does not mean there is no evidence. It isn't bold and courageous. Refusing to look does not magically erase information. Evidence exists or not regardless of whether we look at it or not. The only way to be sure it doesn't exist .. is to look.

That person simply loved their own opinion more than the truth. They were right, and everyone who wrote entire books to the contrary were all wrong, and that is that. The possibility of large quantities of information they had not considered was threatening and scary. What if they might be wrong? The implications could cause major alterations to their viewpoint. As I said earlier, people do not believe things they know are wrong. Their solution was simply to refuse to look at anything that challenges them. Problem solved! And that, my friends, is the textbook definition of willful ignorance.

If you really aren't interested in something, or if you really don't want to study, then don't. Nobody's forcing you. But if you're going to avoid an education, don't run your mouth like you know what you're talking about. There should be some kind of humility that comes with knowing you aren't informed. Yet, there wasn't.

Dear reader, please don't be like that person.

If you are, then you're really going to dislike us here. In our Welcome To ABD sidebar, we say, "As Bereans Did is a blog dedicated to a deeper investigation of the claims and doctrines of the Church of God movement." And so we are. Because how can we know who is right and who is wrong if we do not boldly investigate all of the facts on both sides, pray about it, and adjust ourselves? We cannot!
The authors here have each come from Armstrongism. We spent decades there. Some of us were teachers of that system. We know what the Church of God splinters teach. We made the scary decision to look at the the other evidence. We've lived both sides. Now, we compare and contrast so more people can do what we did, only easier.

In my post Escaping Armstrongism - Part I, I wrote it was giving myself permission to question and to be wrong that turned my life around.

What that person wanted from me was what they had been trained to expect: a proof-text. In Armstrongism, the conclusion comes before the evidence. They get that from their SDA roots. Proof-texting is established practice. In Armstrongism, what is often done is the proof-text is ripped it out of its context, an entirely new context is crafted for it, then it is plugged it back in and showcased as if it is proof positive for an entire line of thinking. That, and mis-using Strong's Concordance to improperly change the definitions of words. Bible doesn't say what you want? Change it! Strong's even tells you how to use it right up front, but the instructions are ignored. I could lay this utter failure to teach people how to study their Bibles at the feet of many churches.

Sadly, the way some people "look for evidence" could easily be the direct opposite of looking. It reminds me of the people who assert, "Jesus never said He was God." Not with the phrase they demand, no. But with other phrases, He absolutely did. And with a life that fulfilled the many prophecies I mentioned earlier, and with many displays of authority. He did many things only God does - for example, forgive. It was Jesus' way to avoid saying things directly, but to do signs and works. Even the Jews knew what Jesus was doing (JON. 10: 22-33). With all that weight of evidence and the cloud of witnesses, you would think people would just drop the argument. But no. They've found one phrase Jesus didn't say and they demand that is the one phrase Jesus must say. Their demands for evidence are in fact demands for ignorance. Willful ignorance.

Dear reader, please don't be like these people.

Read. Investigate. Pray.
The truth can take care of itself.

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

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

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