AS BEREANS DID: 2026

Wednesday, August 19, 2026

Evil Hearts; Good Hearts

Evil people do evil. Their fruits are evil, only, in the sight of God.

The fundamental difference between evil people and God, along with those who are the “new creature” (creation) who are led by the Holy Spirit, is that God and the righteous ones judge according to the heart, whereas evil people judge according to outward appearance; unrighteous judgment, seeing as God refers to righteous judgment as contrasted to judging according to outward appearance.

Evil people, due to their deceptive hearts, refuse to believe they are evil, and seek to “prove” they are good using the only standard available to them, being evil people, and that is to judge even themselves according to appearance.

Because this is the only standard by which they can judge, being evil, they also use this standard to judge others, so that they end up judging good people by this false standard of outward appearance.

Evil people then gravitate to the law that is ready-made to be manipulated so as to give the outward appearance of being good by keeping the law, as well as using the standard or requirements of the law to judge and condemn good people who they perceive as such because they do not keep the law. They cannot conceive of the concept that good people do not have to prove themselves good through the law. The evidence of their condition is established by the fruits of the Spirit where it is possible for good works, wrought in and through the Holy Spirit, to violate the letter of the law that evil people embrace as the ‘proof’ they are good.

The proof of this concept is found whereby Jesus worked on the Sabbath, breaking the Sabbath by doing good works, and not evil works. For again, and for the sake of emphasis, good “trees” can only produce good works / fruits, and if anyone was good then, it was Jesus; God Incarnate.

This also provides evil people with the opportunity to manipulate the law so as to make themselves “look” good while using the law to “prove” those good people as the real evil ones; not them; for they “keep the law” that defines sin or evil works as the result of transgressing the law, such as the Sabbath, unwilling to admit good works are lawful on the Sabbath, even as Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath so declared. Admitting good works to be lawful on the Sabbath they use as evidence of their spiritual condition of being good, keeping the law, is eroded.

Biblical Evidence

(1 Timothy 1:9-10) Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, °For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Christians are righteous - due to faith, not law.

(Romans 4:13) For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

(Philippians 3:9) 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:

Converse to this is unrighteousness, which is not derived through the transgression of the law, but through the condition of the heart, whereby God judges righteous judgment; a “deceitful and desperately wicked heart” – a heart of stone and an evil heart of unbelief is what makes one unrighteous. (Jeremiah 17:9; Ezekiel 11:19; Ezekiel 36:26; Hebrews 3:12)

The law condemns the unrighteous sinner. Ironic then that the unrighteous; those with the evil hearts, gravitate to the law that condemns them; not others who God deems as righteous who are said in Scripture to be dead to the law; freed from the law, not under the law and redeemed from the law. They are not subject to the condemnation of the law, (Rom. 8:1) that condemnation having been taken by Jesus in their stead.

Evil people who embrace the law will hop up and down screaming that faith and grace do not justify sin, where they define sin as the automatic result of transgressing the law, citing only part of 1John 3:4, while ignoring what the Greek actually says and relates. Sin ALSO transgresses the law where sin is also “anomia” translated into English as evil, iniquity, and lawlessness in a GENERAL sense and not specifically as against only the Decalogue of the Hebrew old covenant law. It strains credulity to conclude that a Greek speaking person in a Grecian city-state, referred to evil and iniquity being solely the transgression of a law of another country, namely Israel and the Hebrew law.

An evil heart is a sinful heart, that only produces evil, iniquitous, lawless fruit. And the law condemned such people, whether they “kept the law” or not, as evidenced by Psalms 44.

A further irony is that God, in His judgment, may well say to such people that they chose the law, therefore let the very law they embraced by their judge.

(Luke 19:12-27) He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Keeping the law seems like the right thing to do, but there is no “gain” of good works. There is simply the refraining from doing evil; an attempt to not sin; not bear bad / evil fruits (works). What gets overlooked is that a person must bear good fruits, or else:

(Matthew 3:10) And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

(Matthew 7:19) Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Those who opt to live by the law; keeping the law, who have the deceptive and wicked heart do not, and cannot bring forth good fruit.

(John 15:18-25) In this story Jesus put forth cited here, the people who would not have Him rule over them hated Him.

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 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. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Who all was Jesus referring to that hated Him, and hated His followers, that had the power to persecute both Jesus and them?

The Pharisees and religious elite of Israel; the Sanhedrin… all who lived by the law and taught the law. The administrators of the law. The law Paul, as cited above, wrote that it was for the unrighteous and not the righteous. The law that produces wrath and makes all guilty before God, and not justified before God. The law that was made for the sinners with evil hearts.

They did not want God ruling over them; having jurisdiction over them. They preferred the law; an inanimate thing, like an idol, that they controlled and ruled with surreptitiously.

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

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

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

Monday, August 17, 2026

Sabbath and Sin

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

Conversely, those who refuse to hear His voice; believe in Him and what He SAID, are not His sheep. They listen to others.

Fruits or works of the Spirit are those things done by those who are led by the Spirit. They take the attributes of the Spirit and apply them in everything they do in their Christian life; their walk of faith. Listening to and believing Jesus is therefore ‘good fruit’, and ignoring Him and what He SAID, listening to others, is ‘evil fruit’ produced by those who do not follow Christ Jesus, God Incarnate.

He SAID good works are lawful on the Sabbath. He SAID good works, as contrasted to evil works. He did NOT SAY a good work is evil and sin if done on the Sabbath.

A good man’s works are good, every day. An evil man’s works are evil, every day. An evil heart taints and affects everything done by an evil man. The works of a good man are influenced by his good heart.

(Matthew 12:35) A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

Evil men do not believe Jesus; God Incarnate. They do not listen to Him. They do not follow Him. They contradict Him, even as did the evil-hearted Pharisees who accused Him of sin for having worked on the Sabbath where He produced good works.

If you proclaim that a Christian - in whom dwells the Holy Spirit, in whom is the “new heart” given those who believe and follow Christ Jesus - sins by working on the Sabbath, then you demonstrate through what you believe that you do not believe Jesus; you do not listen to and hear His voice. You are listening to others who also ignore Him and what He SAID. You show your lack of faith, trust, and devotion to Him and in Him. You expose your own evil heart of unbelief (Heb. 3:12). You hold the Sabbath in higher esteem than the Lord of the Sabbath, elevating the Sabbath to the status of “another god” that is greater than God.

Breaking the law does not result in sin. Sinning breaks the law. Do you see the difference?

Murder is a sin; an evil, iniquitous act that ALSO breaks the law. The law is what prescribes the punishment for sin.

Sabbatarians were taught, ‘conditioned’, to view this ‘backwards’ so that a transgression of the law that was not a sin to begin with transforms into a sin because the action technically transgressed the law. Jesus gave examples where this happens, with no charge of sin.

Do you believe Him and what He SAID? Or are you listening to and believing another?

You parrot “sin is the transgression of the law” while ignoring the entire verse, and what the underlying Greek so plainly states that contradicts this translation that slips into ‘interpretation.’

It says, in the flawed English KJV “translation”:

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

One who sins ALSO transgresses the law.

You ‘interpret’ what follows to mean what the Pharisees also concluded, wrongly, that ignores the first part of this verse. A sin; any sin committed by a Hebrew, a person under the law, ALSO transgressed the law that prescribes the penalty for sin.

(Romans 4:15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

You can’t transgress a law that doesn’t exist. But you can sin. You can do evil, if you are evil.

(Romans 5:13) For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Are you paying close attention? Sin does not come from the law. There was sin in the world THEN came the law. Now, for people under the law, there is sin and there is law-breaking, where the result is that sin is “imputed”, charged as a crime against the law, that is punishable. But if there is no law, then sin remains, but there is no law to give sin “teeth” or “strength” to condemn.

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

Whosoever commits sin [hamartia – missing the mark in relation to the glory of God] ALSO transgresses the law [that gives “strength” to sin to condemn]: for sin is anomia [evil, iniquitous, “lawlessness” in a general sense, and not a specific sense regarding a specific law].

Sin transgresses the law because sin is evil, iniquitous and lawlessness.

Someone commits a sin; an evil, iniquitous, lawless act, where law “imputes” the sin as a punishable offense; a chargeable offense under whatever law is extant, in this case the entire corpus of law that was a covenant law with the legal parties being the Hebrews and God.

All sins; all punishable acts in that blood covenant law were paid by the Lord of the Sabbath who made it a point to SAY good works are not a sin because they are good works; not evil, iniquitous works that alone can and did transgress the law and that good works on the Sabbath, remain good works, and not sinful works; not evil, iniquitous works, or lawless works when you properly understand “lawless” contextually.

Good works are never lawless works in this context. No matter when they are done. Evil, iniquitous, “lawless” works on the Sabbath were sin, simply because ALL the works of those same Hebrews were seen by God, who judges according to the heart, as evil, iniquitous, lawless works; the “works of their hands.”

As Jesus pointed out in this regard, good ‘trees’ produce ONLY good fruits/works, and bad (evil) ‘trees’ produce ONLY evil fruits or works of their hands.

Good works therefore are LAWFUL (not lawless) on the Sabbath by those who are deemed by God to be the ‘good trees’; those with good hearts, that come from Him to begin with.

Who then would ‘charge’ Christians with sin for working on the Sabbath? Those who are ‘bad trees’ and not good trees. Those with evil hearts who call evil, good, and good, evil.

Evil people will do evil, iniquitous, and “lawless” works, which include accusing good people of evil, sinful works, even “twisting scripture” in order to mask their evil hearts, using the law as the means to do so, cloaking their evil with the law even as did the Pharisees Jesus SAID were evil children of the Devil, doing the will of their father the Devil. They put on an outward show of keeping the law and Sabbath so as to DECEIVE. And their deception, through the law, included charging Jesus of sin over the Sabbath law, by claiming a breaking the law was to sin instead of an evil, iniquitous act resulting in breaking the law.

They too had it all backwards.

Sin; an evil, iniquitous act, breaks the law. Breaking the law with a good work that is not evil/iniquitous/lawless does not result in the invocation of sin. Evil is sin because it is evil. Good works, even if done on the Sabbath, are not evil and sin due to the day being the Sabbath. Only evil people would attempt to call good works evil and sin because they are performed on the Sabbath.

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

Acts 17:11

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

Sunday, August 16, 2026

A Refutation Of Dane Ortlund And His Book "Gentle And Lowly"

Gentle and Lowly is a masterclass in how to take a complex, formidable, awe inspiring figure like Jesus Christ and flatten Him into a soft emotional mascot. The book tries to pass itself off as deep and comforting, but what it actually delivers is a sentimental reduction of the most powerful person in history. It is the literary equivalent of warm milk. It is theology for people who want reassurance without responsibility and comfort without clarity.

The central claim of the book is built on a flimsy foundation. Ortlund treats one verse in Matthew as if it reveals the entire core of Christ's identity. This is not interpretation. It is cherry picking. The gospels show a Christ who confronts, commands, judges, rebukes, overturns, exposes, and demands. Ortlund ignores all of that and insists that gentleness is the center of everything. The result is a distorted portrait that has more in common with a therapeutic life coach than the Jesus who actually appears in the New Testament.

The writing itself is a problem. It is syrupy, repetitive, padded, and obsessed with emotional tone. It reads like someone trying to soothe the reader rather than teach anything. There is no intellectual weight. There is no structural argument. There is no rigorous engagement with the biblical text. It is soft language wrapped around soft ideas. The book gestures toward Puritan writers but never once matches their clarity or force. It quotes them like ornaments and then proceeds to say almost nothing of substance.

Dane Ortlund’s use of the Puritans is especially embarrassing. He treats them like a collection of inspirational sound bites rather than serious theologians. He rips their statements out of context and uses them to prop up his own sentimental agenda. The Puritans wrote with precision, ferocity, and doctrinal steel. They confronted sin, judgment, holiness, and the terrifying weight of divine justice. Ortlund strips them of all that and turns them into cheerleaders for his soft focus Christ. It is a misrepresentation so severe that anyone familiar with actual Puritan theology will wonder whether Ortlund has read any at all.

The book's treatment of suffering is not only shallow but dangerous. Ortlund describes God as conflicted when He brings affliction. This is not profound. It is incoherent. It blurs the line between God's sovereignty and the existence of evil in a way that leaves readers confused about whether God directly causes their trauma. For anyone who has suffered unjustly, this is not comfort. It is destabilizing. It is the kind of sloppy thinking that creates more pain than it resolves.

The book also manages to undermine the concept of grace itself. Dane Ortlund insists that grace is not a real category and then never explains how salvation actually works. He offers no meaningful account of how Christ gives Himself to His people. He offers no explanation of the means by which salvation is applied. Instead, he repeats vague phrases about opening yourself up to Jesus. This is not clarity. It is emotional introspection disguised as spirituality. It leaves thoughtful readers wondering whether they have opened themselves enough or felt enough or surrendered enough. It is the exact kind of inward spiral that destroys assurance.

The problems do not stop there. The book constantly repeats the same emotional point in slightly different wording, which gives the impression of depth without ever delivering it. It leans heavily on adjectives and sentiment rather than argument or analysis. It treats the reader like someone who needs to be coddled rather than challenged. It never once grapples with the harder realities of Christ's authority, judgment, or demands. It never addresses the cost of discipleship. It never deals with the tension between mercy and justice. It never acknowledges that Christ's gentleness is meaningful precisely because it exists alongside His terrifying holiness. The book is allergic to complexity. It wants Christ to be simple and soothing, and it rewrites Him accordingly.

The book also suffers from a complete lack of theological discipline. It plays fast and loose with doctrinal categories. It uses emotional language where precision is required. It collapses distinctions that matter. It treats divine attributes as if they can be ranked. It treats Christ's emotional posture as if it were His essence. It treats human feelings as if they were reliable indicators of spiritual reality. It is the kind of writing that feels good in the moment but falls apart under even minimal scrutiny.

The final problem is the book's overall intellectual emptiness. It is a devotional fog that tries to pass as theology. It offers comfort without truth, sentiment without structure, and a selectively edited Christ who bears no resemblance to the one revealed in the full witness of Scripture. It is a book that wants to make readers feel good rather than think clearly. It is spiritual sugar. It dissolves instantly and leaves nothing behind.

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

Acts 17:11

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

Saturday, August 15, 2026

Acts 15 - What Was Debated? - part II

What were the Pharisees really trying to require of the Gentiles in Acts 15? Sabbatarians argue it wasn't what Luke plainly wrote. In this article we'll examine the last of the three most common explanations and see if it can withstand scrutiny.

We've been deep-diving into Acts 15, stress testing some claims about what was really going on in the Jerusalem Council. In the first post, we investigated the Sabbatarian interpretation of verse 21 to see if the plan was really to send Gentile converts to synagogue to learn more law later on. We saw that the best approach is to let the context speak for itself rather than read a bunch of predetermined conclusions into it. In the previous post, we looked at what the debate was about in the first place.

Most people seem to believe the debate was between the Apostles who were 0% in favor of the law vs the Pharisees who were 110% in favor of the law. That is not the case. The Apostles were in favor of letting the Jewish converts retain their Hebrew traditions, yet binding none of that on the Gentile converts. If you want an example of a Jewish convert keeping their Old Covenant traditions, I offer you --- the very Pharisee converts at the heart of this debate.
Sabbatarians, however, assert the Apostles were roughly 3% in favor of the law vs the Pharisees who wanted something else entirely. But what? The three main explanations are:

A) Circumcision only, or
B) Pharisaical traditions, or
C) All the law - particularly the ones which Sabbatarians don't believe are necessary and which they call "the Law of Moses".

In the last post, "Acts 15 - What Was Debated? - part I", we went over the first two of these. We saw how they don't hold up. Today, we investigate the third.

Let's get crack-a-lackin.

LAW OF MOSES?

The Council was not only about the "law of Moses".

Some people realize this could not only have been about circumcision or the customs, but they still have an ideological commitment to protect the Ten Commandments, therefore they redefine what the phrase "the law of Moses" means. Some redefine it as the ceremonial and national portions of the Old Covenant law. They claim there is a difference between the "law of God" (ie. the Ten Commandments plus a handful of other things like tithing, meats, and holy days) and the "law of Moses" (pretty much everything else). This has become a very popular claim.

I disagree there is such a difference in the first place. We have articles on that (see "Law of Moses - Law of God" and "Law of God - Law of Moses").

Now, I realize those two posts that I just mentioned can be very confusing. They made sense when I wrote them, but they are admittedly challenging to follow. I will distill down the best parts for you here. Let's start with Nehemiah 8.

(NEH. 8:1,8) 1 Now all the people gathered together as one man in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law [torah] of Moses, which the LORD had commanded Israel. ... 8 So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law [torah] of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading.

Same book, same law, two descriptions. In one verse it's "law of Moses". In another verse it's "law of God". In both it's "Torah". It's all the same thing.

Joshua 8:30-35 calls the whole Torah the "book of the law" and "book of the law of Moses". Remember, in Joshua's time they only had the first five books. All of it was "the law of Moses". And what will we find more than once in this 'law of Moses'? The Ten Commandments.

It's the same in the New Testament.

(Luke 24:44) Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

That's the whole Old Testament. Jesus recognized the three divisions in the scriptures: the law, the prophets, and the psalms. But He refers to the whole law as "the law of Moses".

I Kings 2 presents this even more clearly:

(I KIN. 2: 3) And keep the charge of the LORD your God: to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses.

Oh my.
I shouldn't have to say another word about this ...but I will.

My conclusion, that there is no difference between "law of God" and "law of Moses", is precisely what was written in the Worldwide Church of God's "Systematic Theology" document, 1978 version, page 3 paragraph 2. They wrote:

"It is also important to note that the term 'law of Moses' is itself used interchangeably with the term 'law of God.'"

Except, the Systematic Theology was a bit controversial and contradicted other things that were written by the same church both before and afterward. (Armstrongism always has liked to have its cake and eat it too.) Still, I find it interesting that the Worldwide Church of God in its heyday, for brief and shining moment, officially recognized what I am telling you now.

Referring back to Josephus - read his works and you will see he consistently treats the laws, the Torah, the books of Moses, and Moses' legislation, as one body of material. So, now we have biblical and extra-biblical reasons to believe it's all the same thing.

You see, when the Bible says "of Moses" or "of [insert name here]", it doesn't necessarily mean those things belong to that person or were invented by that person. It means those things were either primarily about that person or they were given through that person. For example, "Jesus of Nazareth" doesn't mean Jesus belongs to Nazareth. Likewise, "the book of Isaiah" was not really about Isaiah so much as it was about the prophecies that God gave through Isaiah. They were God's prophecies, but called Isaiah's because he was the conduit. "The Gospel of Mark" doesn't mean there is a gospel about Mark or a gospel that belongs to Mark, separate from “gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (MARK. 1: 1). That's all "the law of Moses" means. Those laws didn't belong to him; they were given through him.

(JON. 1: 17a) For the law was given through Moses...

There is no "law of Moses" with a separate and distinct "law of God". They were all the law of God. They were all the law of Moses. The whole third claim is artificial and based on a predetermined commitment; a commitment to take the singular body of law and break it up into chunks, keeping a few and discarding the rest.

I realize this is a critical point for Sabbatarians, so they will disagree with me. They must. So, let's look at some of the top arguments in favor of there being a "law of God" and a separate "law of Moses".

Perhaps the foremost argument is:
The Ten Commandments were written by God's own finger and were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, while the book of laws that Moses wrote was placed beside the Ark.

The point of this is to make the Ten separate and superior. This has some serious problems.

The first problem is: It was the second set of tablets that were put into the Ark, but it's not clear who wrote the second set of tablets.

God wrote the first set of the Ten Commandments with His own finger, but then Moses broke those tablets. As for the second set:

(EXO. 34:1) And the Lord said to Moses, “Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.
(EXO. 34:27) Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”

Who wrote the second set? Scholars have debated for a very long time whether it was God or Moses. It isn't clear. If you want to believe it was God, that's fine. But...

The second problem is: the Ten Commandments were written in the book Moses wrote, too.

It's in both places. How can the Ten Commandments be superior to the Ten Commandments? If ignore Nehemiah 8 and forge ahead claiming "the law of Moses" was that book, then it was all "the law of Moses". In fact, I'm willing to bet you've never read the Ten Commandments straight from the tablets. You got "God's law" from descendants of that book that was placed beside the Ark, same as the rest of us.

The third problem is: no Sabbatarian church that I've ever heard of believes only the Ten Commandments are required.

A little law always leads to more. What about tithes? What about meats laws? What about holy days? None of those are in the Ten, or the "moral law" for that matter (another artificial term). So, if those aren't "Law of God" then why must anyone bother with them? And what about the four laws the Apostles said were necessary for Gentiles to observe in Acts 15? They were not in the "Law of God". And what about circumcision, which got this ball rolling in the first place? All of these are solidly in what Sabbatarians call "the law of Moses".

So, were the tablets placed in the Ark with the Aaron's staff and a pot of mana because:
A) Those three things were creating a special category of law,
or
B) Because they were special physical items that represented God's relationship with Israel?

I am going with B.

I do not find this argument convincing at all. And it's arguably the best one.

There is another claim which is very similar to the first.

Herman Hoeh, "the most accurately informed historian in the world", had a slight variation. In his article "Which Old Testament Laws Are In Force Today?", he claimed:
The Ten are special because they are the only laws God spoke directly to Israel, while Moses merely delivered the statutes and judgments.

While those base facts may be true, the conclusion he is attempting to reach does not hold. The way they were delivered does not make them a separate class of law. God spoke many of the laws to Moses, who them wrote down in his book. The issue is not whether God spoke these words directly vs. indirectly through Moses. The issue is that they came from God. I am not convinced by the claim, "All mankind must keep these laws because these are the ones God spoke to Israel."

In Israel's view:

"All 613 of those mitzvot are equally sacred, equally binding and equally the word of G-d. All of these mitzvot are treated as equally important."
-Judaism 101, “Aseret ha-Dibrot: The Ten Commandments”.

I am not saying the Ten aren't special. They are! But even the Jews don't believe their delivery or where they were placed makes them a separate and particularly binding class of law.

There are more arguments than these, of course, but I am not going to get into them here. They get more and more ridiculous as you go along. I will simply suggest reading "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VI".

This whole section boils down to this: modern Sabbatarians say "law of Moses" refers to a particular subset of the law, but if we cannot prove that's what the people at the Jerusalem Council thought then it all falls apart. And we have no good reason to believe that's what the Apostles and Pharisees thought.

The initial trouble was not only about some portion of the law called "the Law of Moses".

CONCLUSION

The three main explanations given by Sabbatarians of what the Pharisees were trying to bind on the Gentiles are either:
A) Circumcision only. It cannot be this because Luke says, "and the law." Circumcision was not about merely being circumcised.
B) Pharisaical traditions. It cannot be this because Luke says, "the law of Moses." The oral law was not called the law of Moses.
C) The "law of Moses". It cannot be this because there is no separate "law of Moses" distinct from "law of God". They are the same thing.

We have reviewed each and shown how each of these has insurmountable weaknesses. Each one collapses under its own weight.
These three aren't reasonable explanations so much as they are rescue attempts.

I was an Armstrongist. I know the motivation - there must be a Sabbath day, and that means there must be the Ten Commandments, and that means the Apostles must be for some of the law, and that means the Pharisees must be arguing something other than what Acts 15 actually says. These three explanations are the result.
And that means the "Early Church Fathers" were all liars, and this is all Constantine's fault, and mainstream Christians are all deceived, and so on and so forth. I get it.

The Sabbatarian understanding of Acts 15 comes out of prior commitments to the Sabbath day. In short, eisegesis.
But, in case you haven't noticed, this blog has been systematically going through each individual point in the universe of Sabbatarian proof texts, and we've been pointing out the issues in each and showing other ways to understand them. What we've been driving at is - what if there is no prior commitment to the Sabbath day? What if the Apostles really did decide against requiring the law for Gentile converts? What if the New Covenant really is different from the Old, as the prophecies of Jeremiah predicted? What if these three explanations we saw today fall apart because the prior commitment itself is not valid in the first place? If these three points really are the explanation, then why are they completely incompatible with one another? It sounds like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. None of them do!

So what were the Pharisees really debating in Acts 15? I believe they were debating how to join the Covenant.

The fourth explanation is that Pharisees meant exactly what Luke wrote: The Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law.
That's what the text says.
And the decision of the Apostles was exactly what Luke wrote, and several years later reiterated when he quoted James: "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing."

But the Gentiles were not joining Israel. The Gentiles already received the Holy Spirit. They were accepted into the New Covenant without joining Israel first. Instead, both Jew and Gentile were joining the body of Christ, and all the Gentile converts had to do to keep the peace with the Jewish converts were those points of the law required of all Gentiles in Israel from Leviticus 17 & 18.

Or, to put this entire thing another way:

Christ is sufficient.

Friday, August 14, 2026

What Is The Root of Sin?

Sabbatarianism asks, then answers, “what is sin?”

A better question is: What is the root of sin? What is sin’s foundation?

Jesus answers this more basic question.

(Matthew 12:35) A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

The genesis of sin is an evil heart.

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

Sabbatarianism attempts to deal with sin from the wrong perspective, seeing the law as the solution, and not by addressing the heart and the condition of the heart. It is like a doctor treating the symptom of a disease, and not the root cause that produces the symptoms.

Sabbatarianism therefore shifts the problem to the result of sin, ignoring the causative factor of sin, that being a bad heart; an evil heart.

Sabbatarianism also distracts themselves and others by further claiming that it is through the law God judges mankind so as to make it appear that the solution is found in keeping the law and not keeping the law brings about God’s judgment and wrath.

But what did God have to say on this matter? That He does not judge like a man judges and as a man concludes; rather He judges what He refers to as 'righteous judgment', according to the heart of man.

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

(Romans 2:5) But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Mankind has a heart problem, where the solution proffered by God is a new heart.

(Ezekiel 18:31) Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

(Ezekiel 36:26 A) new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Whenever Sabbatarians are confronted with an alternate explanation and solution for sin, they reject it due to the investment they have made with the law, thereby resisting the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit is that “new heart” God speaks of as well as that law placed within the believer. However, with an emphasis on the law, people are driven further away from God as a result.

(Matthew 23:15) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

What is the proselyte taught? What is he indoctrinated into?

The law. And the result of being focused exclusively on the law is to exclude all else and where the real problem lays; that being a heart problem; a ‘diseased’ wicked heart… an evil heart of unbelief in regards here to what God says is the problem; how He judges mankind, and His solution being the thing those bound up in the law reject out of hand, even as did the Pharisees who put Stephen the martyr to death.

(Acts 7:52)Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

They cloaked their evil hearts with the law. They insulated their evil hearts against the Holy Spirit with the law.

“Keep the law, and do not sin. Sin is the problem, and keeping the law is the solution, for sin is the result of transgressing the law.”

God’s solution is more elegant, and more anathema to Sabbatarianism. Replace the heart, and the sin problem goes away for the motive to sin also goes away. And because God Himself took the wrath of the law upon Himself, the law was thus satisfied and God’ s justice was thus satisfied, which results in the one with the new heart; the Holy Spirit and spiritual law of God that leads the believer into life eternal, and not a law that led the evil hearted into their just condemnation, meted out by the law of sin and death; the ministration of condemnation and death, engraven in stones.

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

Acts 17:11

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

Thursday, August 13, 2026

Evil Uses the Sabbath

There is a category of evil people that refuse to believe they are evil. They believe they are good in that they do not do some of the more egregious things “evil” people do, like commit murder. They will admittedly do some minor things that are wrong, chalking it up to human nature, but having embraced religion, they confess those discretions, and carry on.

They will embrace variations of Old Covenant law in order to validate their perception of themselves. This is where the Sabbath comes into play. Part of this equation is wanting to prove they are good. Part of this proof is found through comparing themselves with those perceived by them to be evil. They are "evil' people because they do not do those things that "good" people do, like keeping the law “of God”.

(Isaiah 1:13-20) Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

(Isaiah 1:13) [JPS] Bring no more vain oblations; It is an offering of abomination unto Me; New moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations— I cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly.

These "good" things had morphed into useless and vain rituals without substance which became iniquitous in the sight of God. There were much more important things to attend to.

They were going through the motions of keeping those things commanded in the law. Their hands they raised to God in worship in their religious assemblies were full of blood. Their worship was in vain; even iniquitous – an ‘aggravated’ sinful act. These were outward expressions of piety that were fraudulent; deceptive; misleading.

Such actions and behaviors, like keeping the Sabbath, came down to being theater; an outward show and appearance. What was to be the worship of God was nothing other than self-aggrandizement; an act of glory to one’s self, and not an act of glory to God. It was a display designed to gather attention to the self, not unlike this example:

(Matthew 6:5) And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

A truly Godly person has God as the focus and reason for all they do, done out of love and gratitude to God who pulled them out of the mire of the world and their own sins, now dedicated to God and producing fruits unto God to the glory of God.

But when a sinful man who is in denial practices a religion of outward show, such as keeping the Sabbath, he does it for the glory of himself. “I keep the law and Sabbath, unlike these sinners who do not keep the law and Sabbath.” When you break it down, keeping the Sabbath, the focus is on the self in relation to a day they refrain from doing any work, including any fruits born to the glory of God. The focus is on the day and the self.

(Isaiah 58:13) If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

They were not doing these things mentioned by God on the Sabbath. They were not honoring God. They were focused on the day, even as are modern Sabbatarians, as well as themselves, honoring themselves for keeping the Sabbath, while denigrating those who do not, believing they are the ones dishonoring God by not keeping the day; observing the day itself for the day’s sake.

Consider though the works and fruits of a Christian whose fruits are to the glory and honor of God EVERY DAY, following a lifestyle of dedication to God EVERY DAY; every waking hour.

The Sabbatarian defines himself with the Sabbath. The true Christian defines himself as a forgiven sinner who loves the God who saved him from sin and the consequences of sin who now dedicates himself totally to God and praising His glory for His mercy and compassion shown him.

But the Sabbatarian views himself as having overcome sin through his own efforts, and only needs God to come on the scene for those rare occasions he “sins” and requires forgiveness, then it’s back to business as usual…

Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit? — Amos 8:5

God foretold He would do away with the Sabbath, it having become unproductive. The day had become more important to the people than what the day was to represent.

(Luke 13:14-17) And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

What Jesus did was what God does, being God – acts of compassion; acts of love, to the glory of the Father.

(Hosea 2:11) Sabbatarians idolize the Sabbath and idolize the law “engraven in stones” not unlike how the children of Israel ended up idolizing the serpent set up on a pole by Moses called Nehushtan they were to look upon should any of them be bitten by vipers, burning incense to it where incense represented prayers. I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

The Pharisees of Jesus’ time, who administered the law, focused on those works of the law that could be manipulated to present them to the people as righteous and where Jesus chastised them for neglecting the weightier matters of the law. The weightier matters of the law did not serve them. They were not interested in administering true justice, mercy, and faith. They were there to uphold the works of the law, especially the Sabbath, with a ruthless zeal if necessary, ‘defending the faith.’ Their dedication was to the law and Sabbath that served them and their agenda; not God; not the “Lord of the Sabbath” who declared good works lawful; not a sin; works done to the glory of God by those who follow God and whose works are always to the glory of God; good trees, producing only good fruits (works) wrought in God that could only be carried out because of God, due to His presence through the Holy Spirit in them.

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

Acts 17:11

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

Good Works — Evil Works

Adventists claim and believe that they would sin if they worked on the Sabbath, and claim that anyone who works on the Sabbath sins.

Jesus said good works are lawful on the Sabbath, not sin, and He contrasted good works with evil works.

So to reiterate, Adventists admit that were they to work on the Sabbath they would sin. So they refrain from working on the Sabbath so as to not sin. They admit their works are sin; sinful works, on the Sabbath.

Sin, from the Greek “hamartia” – ‘missing the mark’ in relation to the glory of God, ALSO is the Greek, “anomia” which is translated into three different English words: lawlessness, evil, and iniquity. This is what 1John 3:4 relates, so that sin; missing the mark, is also lawlessness, evil, and sin.

Adventism further defines “lawlessness” so that it is only in the context of the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, to the exclusion of any other lawlessness, iniquity, or sin. To them, "the law" is the Ten Commandments.

It also would have to mean that if a Greek speaking person in Greece were to use “anomia” it would be lawlessness also in relation to the Decalogue of the Hebrews, which is quite a stretch way beyond credibility. They had their own laws and would have had no interest or even knowledge of the laws of other countries, let along the law of Israel and the Hebrews.

Getting back to what God Incarnate said publicly, certain things can be done on the Sabbath without lawlessness. Good works were lawful on the Sabbath. He contrasted lawful works with lawlessness, evil, and iniquitous works. But those things are never lawful to do. If you worked on the Sabbath and God charged you with sin, it would be because the works themselves were evil, lawless and iniquitous, as contrasted to good, lawful works.

But Adventism insists that some otherwise good works, if performed on the Sabbath, result in those same works becoming lawless, sinful, and iniquitous.

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

Now for a question that shouldn’t be difficult to answer: who would call good works evil, and evil works good? A good person, or an evil person?

An evil person, who will in turn attempt to define evil and good works in relation to the Sabbath, instead of the merits of the works themselves and those performing the works based upon their motive of heart for doing so.

Good Works

The evil person’s perception is based on appearance. They “see” someone working on the Sabbath works that they themselves have not concluded to be exempt from the prohibition against working on the Sabbath. Their perception is that it is the law that makes the determination, and not them, when in fact it is really them and their lawless use and abuse of the law.

If you are not an Adventist, then you are the target of charges of sins against the “law of God” which they wield unlawfully in order to accuse and persecute those God has declared righteous, and whose works now, wrought in the Spirit, are seen by God who judges according to the heart and not the law, as good works, ONLY — Christians who are now “good trees” producing ONLY good fruits to the glory and honor of God.

When Jesus performed miracles, there were times the people who witnessed them gave glory to God for the miracles they witnessed. But the Pharisees who taught the law, only, did not celebrate and give glory to God. They attributed the miracles to the devil and the works of the devil, with Jesus being a spawn of the devil. Good works, even miraculous works, which He performed intentionally on the Sabbath, exposed their evil hearts for all to see when they declared good works evil, sinful, lawless and iniquitous.

A good heart, provided by God Himself, results in good works done to the glory of the God who gives us the good heart; aka His Holy Spirit that converts a person into a new creation, led now by the Spirit, and no longer the flesh, where those led by their stony, carnal, evil heart, could only produce evil works or fruits.

And this, according to Adventism, is twisting Scripture, which is much easier to do than trying to refute good works themselves, which are the fruits of the Holy Spirit in those led by the Holy Spirit. Good words are accused in an attempt to defend how an otherwise good work one day is a sin if performed between the hours between sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

Good works are always good works. Evil works are always evil works. Good hearted people with the new heart from God produce only good works. Evil hearted people who lack God’s Holy Spirit produce only evil works. It was the evil-hearted Hebrews with a deceitful heart of stone, an evil heart of unbelief, who were given the law with the Sabbath commandment where they were to refrain from their evil works of the flesh, born of an evil heart.

Wherever you read "Adventist" feel free to plug in your flavor of Sabbatarianism

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

Acts 17:11

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

Wednesday, August 12, 2026

Mormon Contradiction: Is The Nature Of God Changeable Or Unchangeable?

The Book of Mormon contains a number of passages describing God as having an unchangeable nature:

"For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18)

"Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved." (Alma 41:8)

These passages communicate themes of the immutability of God. These are words that could come from the mouth of anyone who professes faith in Him. Taken by themselves, these statements may even hoodwink one into thinking that Mormonism is thoroughly consistent with traditional Christianity.

"For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?" (Mormon 9:9)

This text is of interest here, especially considering how Joseph Smith took the words describing Christ in Hebrews 13:8 and applied them to God the Father. The point is not that such a description of Him is incorrect, but the verbatim words from the biblical text have been inserted into the Book of Mormon. This is arguably an instance of plagiarism.

Official Mormon doctrine, on the other hand, affirms that God is increasing in knowledge. Consider this excerpt from the Journal of Discourses, volume 6:

"The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coequal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth....There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal with our Father in heaven."

If God can grow in terms of knowledge, then how can He be said to be unchangeable? If God is as man once was and man can become what God is, then He cannot have that trait applied to Him. Smith's teaching on this issue is muddled and contradictory.

If God is able to increase in knowledge, then it follows that He can make mistakes. His judgments are liable to error. The Mormon conception of god is not a god in any meaningful sense of the term. The god of Mormonism has no power to save lost souls.

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

Acts 17:11

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

Tuesday, August 11, 2026

Physical vs Spiritual

Deceptions rarely stand alone in a religious environment. A deception usually breeds more deceptions in order to build a structure of interwoven deceptions that appear to all be supporting one another as truths.

One of the tell-tale indicators is how the language is used, with deceptions often being referred to as “obviously true” despite a lack of biblical evidence to support them.

The concept of “moral” law is a good example. Nowhere in Scripture does it state that any law constitutes being “moral” law, let alone the entire Decalogue. Yet the concept is accepted as true despite this, and the requirement stated in Scripture is to prove all things, not to accept all things should they appear to be “obviously” or “apparently” true.”

(Proverbs 3:5) Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Ask those who believe in “moral” law to define it. And ask how it contrasts to “ceremonial” law and how that is defined. It’s like watching a deer illuminated in the headlights, because the organization they belong to that proffers the concept has not defined the terms outside of circular reasoning. Most members are reluctant to answer, knowing that any answer they proffer may well not meet the criteria of any ‘official position’ of the organization. They are satisfied to simply parrot the belief/claim and leave it at that.

I proffer the concept that if there truly were such a thing as “moral” law, they would be laws where there is NEVER an excuse or justification for violating them. Murder is always wrong when properly defining ‘murder.’ Same with adultery, bearing false witness, and idolatry, to mention a few.

The concept of ‘moral’ law also raises another, associated issue. Are we discussing “moral” law in the context of a person being justified and declared morally upright because they keep or comply with “moral” law? And if so, then what of those who, say, never commit a murder, yet have a deep seated hatred of another, which Scripture identifies as the “spirit of murder”?

This would also be hard to embrace, given the statements by Paul that no one will be justified by the works of the law. What ties this all together is Jesus’ declaration about the Pharisees, who we could argue at least kept the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) yet Jesus referred to them as children of the devil and that they hated Him without a just cause.

(John 15:25) But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

No matter what Jesus did before them, in their sight, even raising the dead, was rejected in favor of the law. To them, the Messiah to come would be validating both them and the law they administered, so that, they charged even the followers of Christ Jesus for being ignorant of the law and thus cursed as a result.

(John 7:48-49) Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.

Dare I point it out? The law was more important than God Incarnate. And if you put something, anything, above and greater than God, then what is that ‘thing’ to you? It is the ‘god’ you serve and obey. It is your idol; whether made of stone, or the product of your imagination, or both.

(John 4:23-24) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Can we agree then that the Pharisees, whose focus was about the law and the works of the law that were physically oriented, were not worshiping God in spirit and in truth? They were rejecting truth by rejecting He who was the personification of Truth, and where spirit is about things non-corporeal; outside the realm of physical things and outside the realm of the heart, mind, and soul, where their focus was in relation to the physical body and outward appearances.

A believing Christian then sees themselves in relation to Christ in association with the heart, mind, and soul. False Christians, unbelievers, not being led by the Holy Spirit, will focus then on the physical things, such as the works of the law that have no bearing, no impact, on the heart, mind, and soul, even as was the case with those Pharisees.

The works of the law, and most everything in the law, pointed forwards to the Messiah to come; the Christ we know to be the Son of God, who is also God. It is a concept impossible for those focused on the physical to fully grasp, being a spiritual concept. For God exists in a spiritual realm and not a physical one where physically-, carnally-minded people try to understand the nature of God through a physical filter.

The physical sacrifices were typology of Him. Circumcision was typology of conversion, performed by the Holy Spirit, where under the law, a Jew was not complete unless and until he was circumcised. And in this spiritual reality, a “man” becomes complete in Christ through this spiritual “circumcision” “performed without hands”.

(Colossians 2:11) In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

As an aside, note carefully the wording and reference to sin, being sins of the flesh… not sins of the law. For the Gentiles were never required to come under the law, through a physical circumcision according to the law. This spiritual circumcision of the heart brings one into the New Covenant “law” of the Spirit and not the old covenant law of the physical letter… that kills.

Where Sabbatarianism, such as Armstrongism and Adventism, expose themselves as non-spiritual is their embrace of the old covenant Sabbath rest for the physical body that followed six days of physical work; ignoring the typology which they vaguely comprehend in regards to the sacrifices and circumcision. There is a spiritual “rest” found in Christ; a rest for the non-physical component of mankind associated with the heart, mind, and soul. The author of Hebrews points out this spiritual rest as a cessation of a former work, even as God ceased from the work of the physical universe where that typology meets its completion in the spiritual creation of a new man; a new creature / creation where all things have become new; different than the old.

(2 Corinthians 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

What were the “old things” that passed away? Everything associated with the old man, including his previous works of the flesh and sins of the flesh. A man in Christ enters into God’s rest. The rest God entered into millennia ago and still resides in is a permanent rest or “cessation” from the act of physical creation. This is a typology of our rest/cessation of our former works of the physical flesh, leading to eventual death, and in contrast our conversion/transformation places us within God’s rest, that is life ETERNAL. We now reside in this condition for the rest of eternity; having entered into God’s rest with Him that will never end. Death has been swallowed up by life.

This is all spiritually discerned, and as such, rejected by those still held by the flesh; still under the bonds and chains of sin. All they know and understand are physical things, along with physical rites and rituals that were typology of what was to come. People reject the concept due to having evil hearts of unbelief; held captive to sin by their very nature; their hearts, minds, and souls that have not undergone any spiritual awakening through conversion via the Holy Spirit, to the end that they end up actively resisting the Holy Spirit in favor of their own efforts under a physical law that condemns physical, carnal people led by the flesh.

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

Acts 17:11

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

Saturday, August 8, 2026

Acts 15 - What Was Debated? - part I

What were the Pharisees really trying to require of the Gentiles in Acts 15? Sabbatarians argue it wasn't what Luke plainly wrote. In this article we'll examine the first two of the three most common explanations and see whether they can withstand scrutiny.

In my last post, "Acts 15:21 - More Law Later?", we saw how the Sabbatarian explanation for Acts 15:21 is not the only way to understand the verse. I proposed the initial trouble in Acts 15 - the thing which disheartened the church, the thing which Paul and Barnabas sharply opposed, which Peter called a yoke, and which the Council ruled against - was exactly what was written: circumcision and the law.
The Pharisees felt that in order to join the Covenant, the Gentiles must join Israel, and to join Israel meant they must first be circumcised, and the result is that they must keep the law. Circumcision and law was the burden, and joining the nation of Israel was the root error that needed to be corrected.
We also saw how the "more law later" claim can be tested. We turn to Acts 21 where James contrasts the converts from Judaism, who were zealous for the law, with the converts from the Gentiles, who were taught no such thing. If even years later James was still saying the Gentiles would be taught no such thing, then there is no "more law later" for the Gentiles. The Sabbatarian reading of Acts 15:21 is flawed.

Sabbatarians disagree, of course. They assert the Apostles were fully in support of a small fraction of the law, while the Pharisees were not insisting on that but something else. The three main explanations for what the Pharisees were trying to bind on the Gentiles are either:
A) Circumcision only, or
B) Pharisaical traditions, or
C) All the law - particularly the ones which Sabbatarians don't personally think are necessary and which they call "the Law of Moses".

I disagreed with all three and said I will go over this more in another post. This is that post. (Which I have since changed into a two-parter because it was too long for one post.)

Keep in mind who we're talking about here: converts from the Pharisees. What were Pharisees like? Fastidious about the law. Tithing on every seed. Memorizing every word. Analyzing every nuance. Did they add traditions? Yes. But those traditions come from their attempt to more accurately understand and rigorously apply the law. (I agree with ABD author Bill's take on their approach to the law.)

A simple reading of the Council's decision clearly plays havoc with Sabbatarianism. Sabbatarianism needs the Old Covenant law. More specifically, it needs the Sabbath day. And to justify the Sabbath day, early Sabbatarians chose to emphasize the Ten Commandments. Yes, a commitment to the Sabbath came before an emphasis on the Ten Commandments. Sabbatarianism is now locked in to the Ten Commandments. Later Sabbatarians added additional laws, arguing amongst themselves over them. Sabbatarians reframe the debate to bring the Gentiles under certain laws while avoiding the appearance of siding with those Pharisees, claiming the debate was only about one of those three things listed above. But was it?
Let's take a look at each of those three things and see if they make sense.

CIRCUMCISION ONLY?

Let's start with circumcision because it's easiest. (That doesn't mean it's simple.) The Council was not only about circumcision alone.

Back in Armstrongism, many were taught the Council was only debating circumcision (for example, read "Reader Testimonials - Centurion", or I could pull up any number of official Armstrongist materials to demonstrate this, for example the Youth Bible Lessons series). Armstrongism at one time or the other taught all three of these incompatible explanations. But the claim is demonstrably false. If it were only about circumcision, then why was the argument said to be over circumcision and the law? Twice! (v.5 & v.24.)
I shouldn't have to say another word about this ...but I will.

Think about the position of Sabbatarianism - that only about 1/6 of the law is required. Now think of the attitude of the Pharisees. Do you think they would only care about circumcision, especially when 5/6 of the law supposedly just became unnecessary? I can't see how that is possible.

Think about the conclusion of the Council which they wrote in the letter to be sent out to all the church. If the initial trouble was about circumcision only, then what on earth does teaching the Gentiles to keep a short list of laws have to do with a debate over circumcision alone? "We had a debate which was only about circumcision, and decided against it. And because circumcision isn't needed, Gentiles should keep these four points of law that have nothing whatsoever to do with circumcision." That seems a rather odd way to solve the problem of circumcision.

It also fundamentally misses the concept of circumcision. Circumcision was never just about a snip. It was about joining a covenant people. It was the sign; the seal.
But which covenant? The Abrahamic! Not the Mosaic.
Circumcision was the required gateway to the Abrahamic Covenant (GEN. 17:10-14) and therefore the covenant people of Israel. It was joining Israel that placed one under Israel's Old Covenant obligations. Paul warns strongly that you could not snip in this context without getting the whole law (GAL. 5:3), along with its condemnations. (This doesn't mean every individual had to personally perform every law, for example some were only for the priesthood, but every person was beholden to the complete system, which included a priesthood.)
What I'm driving at is - the debate in Acts 15 could not be only about circumcision because by its very nature circumcision was not only about circumcision.

Everyone there understood the ramifications of circumcision. That is why the Pharisees insisted on circumcision in the first place - until then, that was how one joined the covenant people. "You want God? Then you join Israel." They misunderstood that the Gentiles were now covenant people without joining Israel first, and that both Jew and Gentile together were joining something new: the body of Christ (EPH. 2:11-18), and that through Christ we join the Abrahamic Covenant. It was being one with Christ that qualifies you to be a child of Abraham and inheritor of the promises.

The Pharisees did not want Gentiles to be circumcised simply to be circumcised, and the Apostles did not oppose it simply so males did not have to be injured for a few days. It was a much bigger conversation than that. It was about what we join and how. It was about the sweeping differences between the Old and New Covenants. The decision of the Council was not just about bypassing circumcision, but avoiding the entire older process.

And I realize some Sabbatarians will argue the Apostles wanted Gentiles to avoid circumcision specifically so they did not have to keep the whole law, and therefore they would be free to only keep certain parts of the law. But a) that's really claim #3, and b) that's not how this works.

A running theme in Sabbatarianism is attempting to find a way back into the Old Covenant, but only so far as to get specific items from it. Bypassing circumcision doesn't mean you now get to enter the Covenant but only so far as you'd like.
In the Old way, the progression was (in a nutshell): circumcision → join Israel → Old Covenant law. So, yes, the Pharisees were arguing for the whole law. But that was how it goes. The law are the terms of the Old Covenant. The law is a singular whole; it's an all or nothing proposition. If you take out circumcision then you are not a party to the Covenant, and so the rest falls apart.
What bypassing circumcision does not do is give us a back door straight to the Sabbath day, dividing the singular body of law into chunks, and excusing us from other parts we would rather not keep. Where is it ever written that bypassing circumcision makes one free to treat the Old Covenant like a buffet? That would mean the whole world could have been doing this the entire time! We've just undermined everything from Moses to Jesus!

You realize this is all still arguing over Old Covenant ideas, right? They are obsolete! We have so many articles on this.

The initial trouble was not only about circumcision.

PHARISAICAL TRADITIONS ONLY?

Let's move on to the Pharisaical traditions. The Council was not only about Pharisaical traditions.

Some people realize this could not have been only about circumcision, but they still have an ideological commitment to protect the Ten Commandments, so they must redefine what "and the law" means. Some redefine it as Pharisaical traditions.
But it cannot be that, either.

(ACT. 15:5) But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

The Pharisaical traditions were not called "the law of Moses". Moses didn't write the oral law. The traditions were distinct from the Torah because they came after the Torah and were meant to describe the Torah. I shouldn't have to say another word about this ...but I will.

It is true that the Pharisees added many traditions and that these traditions had the weight of law, at least among the Pharisees and those who follow them. But the Pharisaical customs are not called "the law" in the New testament and were never said to be "the law of Moses". The New Testament particularly distinguishes the law from the customs. Historically, there was the written law ("Torah") and there was the oral law ("the customs", the "Oral Torah", and eventually "the Mishnah").

Josephus is helpful here because he was from that time and place:

"What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have passed on to the people a great many observances handed down by their fathers, which are not written down in the law of Moses. For this reason the Sadducees reject them and say that we are to consider to be obligatory only those observances which are in the written word, but need not observe those which are derived from the tradition of our forefathers."
-Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews" book XIII, chapter 10, paragraph 6, verse 296-297.

Josephus rejects the idea that the oral law was the law of Moses.

Did we not spend a great deal of time on Acts 15:21 in my last post? Does that not say Moses was read? The oral law, the Mishnah, wasn't written until around 200 AD. It couldn't have been read. And do Sabbatarians not use that verse to claim it refers to Gentiles learning the Torah law? You can't have it both ways. Either the discussion was about the law or it wasn't.

And let's not forget, synagogues are a tradition of the Pharisees (for more, see "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII"). Nowhere in the Bible is there a law that commands going to synagogue (or church) on Sabbath. Synagogues developed in the Second Temple period. It was the Pharisees who ran most synagogues. How can you reject the traditions of the Pharisees and base your entire plan on a tradition of the Pharisees?

So, when Acts 15 says "and keep the law" (v.24) and "keep the law of Moses" (v.5), there is no good reason to conclude this is referring only to the Pharisaical customs. I am sure that if Team Pharisees had their way the Gentile converts would also have been required to keep the traditions, but I see no possible way that this can be only about the traditions.

The initial trouble was not only about the Pharisaical customs.

CONCLUSION

We've gone over the first two of the three main explanations given by Sabbatarians of what the Pharisees were demanding, and we have seen how they fail.

A) Circumcision only. It cannot be this because Luke says, "and the law." By its very nature, circumcision was not only about circumcision.
B) Pharisaical traditions. It cannot be this because Luke says, "the law of Moses." The oral law was distinct from the law of Moses.

Next time, we will go over the final explanation: "the law of Moses".

Wednesday, August 5, 2026

WDGS: What did God Say?

It is utterly amazing how people can read what God said, then not believe God. But those same people claim, with a strait face and unblinking eyes, that they do believe God.

What they do is modify what God said to fit what they actually do believe, by redefining what He meant and what He said, then claim they never altered what God said. I could cite many examples. These same people who claim they believe God will dismiss what I quote and just submit what I cite to the same subconscious filtration of the mind - a heart, mind, and soul God said was corrupt; evil. They don’t believe this either, submitting that to the same system of filtration.

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

Think about the end of that statement; “who can know it?” Not the one with that heart, for their own hearts deceive them.

Those Hebrews to whom Jeremiah was writing were not the exception to this declarative statement. They were “keepers of the law” and were thus not sinning according to some other “deceived” people’s standards. The deceived excusing the deceived. The blind leading the blind. The entire nation of Israel that had the law, believed they were keeping the law - believing themselves compliant - while ignoring the “fine print” of the law. The law said that if they were to keep the law, they would be blessed and if they failed to do so, they would be cursed. They were experiencing the curses and not the blessings. If you read Psalms 44, you will see that they were bewildered as to why, seeing as they were totally convinced in their deceived minds, hearts, and souls that they were keeping the law, and therefore they should be receiving the blessings. It is a carefully worded chastisement of God for not doing as He promised.

When it first started dawning on me that I had too easily accepted the teachings of Sabbatarianism - that I had not actually carefully studied the Scriptures - I resolved to examine, carefully this time, every subject relevant to what I believed to be true. Not with the same mindset as before that was to validate what I believed, but rigorously attempt to invalidate what I believed to be true; testing my beliefs to see if they would stand up to a relatively brutal examination of Scripture, being my own harshest critic. No more assumptions, rationalizations, inferences. A belief had to have plainly stated evidence to support it, and lots of it.

What I believed started toppling like dominoes. But, the “bad habit” of running statements made by God and Christ Jesus through an unconscious filtration through a compromised heart, mind, and soul - that Scripture said was, by nature, antagonistic, “enmity”, and hostility towards God - was still operational and functional within me.

Well after my actual conversion, this filter was still affecting my overall view of things. Spiritual growth can take time.

You can read the words of the things God said without a full comprehension of the consequences of what was said. It was fairly recently that I learned to believe what Jesus said about good trees and bad trees and the fruits they produce, for I had concluded upon leaving Sabbatarianism that there were a lot of nice people in the world, unlike those we left behind who were critical, judgmental, and condemnative. And so, I had to learn the hard way that even people in the world learn to put on a “nice face” and be friendly until a situation arises that brings out the true, otherwise hidden nature of those same people. Today, we see this demonstrated through the political affiliations people have, and where I see politics as just another form of religion; a belief system based on men sans God.

My personal experience however was not due to politics. It was an event that occurred outside my control, but looked to them; my friends, as being an intentional act on my part, which they collectively condemned me over, without any explanation from me.

This taught me what I should have learned had I truly believed what God said, and even commanded: Do not be judging others according to appearance; aka unrighteous judgment. Judge righteous judgment, according to the heart; the intent of heart.

Interestingly, Jesus broached this subject in relation to His having worked on the Sabbath, thereby breaking the Sabbath commandment that said no one was to do “any” work on that day. Let me be ‘brutally’ specific here, for I know some will read this through the filter of their “deceitful heart” so that they can judge according to appearance while trying to look like they are not, and convince themselves they are not.

Any means just that: any. Without exception.

Where so many Sabbatarians fail with this is an understanding of the mitigating circumstances, where there is a legal justification for having done so. But the belief among Sabbatarians is that “transgressing the law” such as the Sabbath results in an automatic charge of sin, despite what Jesus, God Incarnate, SAID. What He said gets run through the evil filter of the mind, heart, and soul, and comes out the other side altered beyond recognition as to the original statement and intent.

He, Jesus the Christ; God Incarnate, who came to save men and not condemn them, said good works were LAWFUL on the Sabbath and even clarified good works to be the opposite; the antithesis of evil works.

It still gets filtered by Sabbatarians. To them, an 'evil work' is anything which breaks the law, like working on the Sabbath.

In contrast, Jesus’ take on it is that an evil work is already an evil work, which in turn ALSO transgresses the law, BECAUSE the act is “anomia”: evil, iniquitous - TO BEGIN WITH - and not as a result of transgressing the law. The law is ALSO transgressed, which would normally result in a charge of sin; an invocation of the penalty of the law, TO BE DETERMINED by the judicial system established IN THE LAW. Today’s Sabbatarians have no such established judicial system outside the confines of their own organizations (churches). You are guilty without a fair hearing, where your accusers are also the “eye witnesses” who establish your guilt. They saw you working on the Sabbath, never mind any mitigating circumstances.

Consider then a possible scenario that can play out in Adventism. An Adventist sees another working on the Sabbath. They inform the ministry, who confronts the member. Imagine how it would play out if the member declared his working on their Sabbath was a good work, and not an evil work.

They have already worked out what is a good work and a bad work through their filtration system that insists that even a work of employment is a good work but still not an acceptable good work when done on the (their) Sabbath; that you “sinned” anyway, where even sin is run through the filtration system, so that sin, as defined by the Greek “hamartia” “misses the mark” when it comes to keeping the Sabbath, and not missing the mark in relation to what Scripture says, this being in relation to the glory of God.

This all ignores a very basic issue regarding good and evil works and who produces them, and again, Jesus defined it all for all to read, which they do, while still running it all through the evil and deceitful filter of the heart one is born with.

Good people produce only good works, and evil people produce only evil works, as determined by a Holy, Righteous, and Just God who JUDGES ACCORDING TO THE HEART and not the law; not according to appearance like a man God already defined in his natural state as having a deceitful and desperately wicked heart that naturally judges EVIL JUDGMENTS.

Who then is an evil person, and who all is good?

God already answered, cited here. Were you paying attention? Or were you sifting it all through your filter?

You were born with that deceitful and desperately wicked heart… of stone; what the author of Hebrews said was an evil heart of unbelief… that doesn’t believe God and what He actually said. You alter what He said, often subtly, so as to conform with your evil heart's beliefs.

Good works are lawful, on the Sabbath, as contrasted to evil works. Not approved works. Not works of “evangelism” or specific works of healing, or any filtrated definition often produced. Good works are produced by those with a “good heart” only. Evil works are the product of an evil heart, only.

God could only condemn an evil if done on the Sabbath if it were already an evil in His sight, else God is being self-contradictory and evil Himself, judging like an evil man, according to appearance where you “see” someone working on the Sabbath, contrary to the Sabbath law and you charge and condemn him for having sinned “against the law” where you now wield the law unlawfully.

It was evil and sin for a Hebrew; a legal party to that old covenant ‘ministration of condemnation and death, engraven in stones’ simply because ALL his works were already evil in the sight of God, who points out they all had evil hearts to begin with.

Because this heart is evil to begin with, such people have a natural aversion to God and His ways, so much so that, should they happen upon an actual child of God in whom God has given them a NEW HEART, aka His Holy Spirit, they waste no time in attempting to charge them with sin and evil over the law; transgressions of the law, where they judge unrighteous judgment, according to appearance.

The New Covenant, which the children of God are party to, are in a condition where ALL their works ‘hit the mark’ when it comes to the glory of God, where all their works are fruits unto God and His Glory.

When an evil person, who has embraced the law given at Mt. Sinai, persecutes the children of God, the evil children of the devil do so to their own ‘glory’ -- their own self-righteousness; their feigned indignation. They are unwittingly filling the cup of God’s wrath against them to the brim and overflowing, with a law that was given to, and designed for those with the deceitful and desperately wicked hearts of stone and unbelief.

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

Acts 17:11

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

ABD Pages

Wednesday, August 19, 2026

Monday, August 17, 2026

Sunday, August 16, 2026

Saturday, August 15, 2026

Friday, August 14, 2026

Thursday, August 13, 2026

Wednesday, August 12, 2026

Tuesday, August 11, 2026

Saturday, August 8, 2026

Wednesday, August 5, 2026