Denying Babel, Erasing Israel

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

---

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

There is a very distinct difference between Jew and Gentile in the Old Testament. To Israel were given "the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises" (ROM. 9:4). Gentiles were strangers to these things (EPH. 2:12); sinners and worshippers of demons. Even Jesus Himself likened Gentiles to dogs (MAT. 15:26). Yet, they were destined to be redeemed by the Messiah (GEN. 12:3).

To sum up, for today's post we need to have in mind these three things:
1) Modern Gentile Sabbatarians want some of the law, so they say the law is for all, 2) but ancient Gentiles were disinherited until Messiah could redeem them and were strangers to the Covenant with its laws, 3) and the law was given to the covenant people Israel to guard them until Messiah could come, so if you want the covenant law you must join Israel.

With those three ideas in place, one modern and two ancient, we can move ahead.

ERASE AND REPLACE

While writing the Acts 15 articles, these points came together and something occurred to me.
All of these back doors into the Old Covenant and claims of universal laws that we've reviewed over the years are really attempts to vacate God's decision to disinherit the Gentiles.
Since the Gentiles were disinherited and the only way to bring them all back was to send the Messiah to redeem them, claiming the covenant law secretly belonged to the world (in other words, the Gentiles) is also an attempt at redemption without the Redeemer.
Modern Gentiles wish to break into the Old Covenant, shove Israel aside, and take what was given to Israel without any right to it whatsoever.
In short, saying the law really belonged to mankind all these centuries is:

• A reversal of the disinheritance of the Gentiles,
• A denial that Gentiles needed a Redeemer, and
• A usurpation of what was given to Israel. 

In a phrase: Denying Babel and erasing Israel. 

Consciously done with forethought and intent? No. But it is what it is all the same.
And that's a good thing? That's "obedience"?

You might be wondering how I came to those conclusions.

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

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

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

Multiple times in three verses it makes this clear. Yet, Sabbatarians ignore this and claim these verses say the Sabbath was for all mankind. How? Because verse 17 mentions creation.

Read it carefully. It does not say the Sabbath was created on day seven. It does not say it was commanded for mankind on day seven. It says God rested on day seven. Everything else is assumed in.
As an aside, someone might wonder how else it should be understood. Verse 17 is saying that because God rested on the seventh day of creation, therefore He put Israel's Sabbath rest on the seventh day of the week. (Note, no mention of going to church.) The Sabbath draws imagery from creation. Israel's Sabbath rest is supposed to be a shadow of God's creation rest. It is supposed to picture a return to Eden. It is not saying the Sabbath was created and given to all mankind on the seventh day of creation; verse 17 does not even mention humans. Genesis 2 doesn't say that either. (For more, see "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2".)

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

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

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

Denying Babel and erasing Israel.

VEGAS-STYLE

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

How does it circumvent Abraham and Israel?

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

Erasing Israel.

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

How does it circumvent Jesus?

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

Denying Babel.

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

Are you objecting? Then you're objecting that it can be done now as well! And I agree with you.

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

Do some not covet?
Look at how some want to usurp Israel. Look at British-Israelism/Anglo-Israelism. They defy all history and genetics so they can pretend to be Israel in order to take what is not theirs. A hundred versions of where and how it played out, and none agree. Or look at the way they call themselves the 144,000. Meaning, the 144,000 from the book of Revelation. A group that is described in exclusively Israelite terms. Or look at the way some pretend to speak Hebrew. "Jesus wasn't His name, it was [insert spelling of the month]." Yahashua, Yahusha, Yashua, Yeshua, Yoshua, Yahua, Y'shua, Joshua, etc etc etc. Changing all the time. A hundred spellings and they're all the most correct one. Arguing amongst themselves over the right way to to render the Hebrew into English, as if Hebrew is some magic spell that will grant you special power. "I say Yasheshuech rather than Jesus, and sh'abbat rather than Sabbath. God will hear me but not you!" (Jesus likely spoke Aramaic, based on certain words He used. Guess how His name would have been written/pronounced. Not Hebrew. Most of the New Testament was written in Greek. Guess how the Apostles wrote His name. Not Hebrew.)
Is that not usurping Israel? Is that not covetousness?

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

THE NEW OLD COVENANT

Someone might say to me that this 'bypass circumcision' option only became available after Jesus. Then why claim the law was always for the world? That's not after Jesus. But this 'after Jesus' claim doesn't make things better. It means A) Jesus fundamentally modified the Old Covenant rather than ending it at His death and replacing it with the New Covenant, and B) takes us right back again to the heart of what the Jerusalem Council was debating.

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

The usual response to this is, "One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you." But no. Only if the Gentile was intent on joining in the worship of God. Exodus 12:49 appears in a section that literally spells this out. Same with Numbers 15:16. Citing these "one law" verses to claim the Gentiles were expected to keep the law without joining Israel is not getting around the problem I am describing, it is exactly the problem I am describing (good thing it's a bad reading).
The only laws the Apostles required of the Gentiles were the laws that always applied to all Gentiles in Israel, whether they were joining the worship of God or not. And James confirmed this years later in Acts 21. Who had the law and the traditions? The Jewish converts. Who was taught no such thing? The Gentile converts. (For more, see "Acts 15 - What Was Debated?".)

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

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

SAY MY NAME

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Cloaking the Heart With the Sabbath

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

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

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

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

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

And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of mine hand. I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts. (Hosea 2:10-11) 

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

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

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. (1 Samuel 16:7) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Law and/or Holy Spirit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Condemnation by Law or Unbelief?

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

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

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

His Gospel message then was a message of life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They will cite, in support of their argument:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Exodus 20:7) You shall not murder.

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

LAW LAW LAW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But but but… it’s GOD’S LAW!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Editing The Commandments

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

WHO ARE YOU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please pay very close attention to three key things here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's take this one step farther.

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

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

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

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

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

COVENANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT TO DO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Lawless

(1 Timothy 1:9-11) 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; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

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

The phrase, “the transgression of the law” is derived from the a single Greek word, “anomia”, translated into English as “evil”, “iniquity”, “lawlessness” where “lawlessness” comes close to the literal transliteration of the Greek word: “a-” against “nomia” law. Against law. Contrary to law. Lawless is more aptly understood as “without law.” Without the restraints of law.

The first citation here gives a perspective of “lawless” based on the context. Lawless people are also disobedient, ungodly, sinners, unholy, profane, murderers of parents and others; liars, perjurers; things that are contrary to sound doctrine, in relation to the Gospel.

Notice Paul did not say these attributes of the lawless was in relation to the law, but in relation to the Gospel and being attributes or behaviors contrary to the Gospel, which, in this context, makes the Gospel a type or form of “law.”

The Gospel commands belief, faith, and trust in Christ Jesus. There exists a “law” of faith, mentioned by Paul in Romans chapter 3. In Romans chapter 8, another “law”:

(Romans 8:1-2) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Those who are no longer condemned by the one law are freed from that law of “sin and death” through conformity to the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus; a law associated also with the Gospel, related to faith/belief, being attributes of the Spirit.

There are those who reject the law of faith; the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, who embrace the other law that the apostle Paul pointed out was not of faith, for this other law has nothing to do with the law of faith and the Spirit. It is / was a law for the FAITHLESS.

The Hebrews, the legal party to the old blood covenant law, were defined as faithless, stiff-necked and rebellious. The author of Hebrews refers to them as having “evil hearts of unbelief.”

Paul points out in his writings that they were to be held under the law UNTIL the revelation of the “faith to come.”

(Galatians 3:23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

The faithless do not embrace the law of faith. They do apply methods of deception with the law that is not of faith in order to make it appear to be the law of faith, denying there even is another law.

With the new covenant law of faith and the Spirit; the law closely associated with the Gospel, faithlessness is a sin.

(Romans 14:23) And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Seeing as the followers of Christ are freed now from condemnation, based on being freed from the one law and embracing the other, does the previous law still condemn those who have rejected the law of faith and the Spirit? Or does the new law of faith and the Spirit condemn those who fail to embrace it?

(John 16:7-9) Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me;

It is those who reject the law of faith and the Spirit that stand condemned in this present world. The faith that was to be revealed has been revealed, and many there be that reject it, in favor of the law they were kept under in the meantime.

The Gospel has an association with the new covenant law of faith and the Spirit, and no association with the other law of sin and death, also referred by Paul in 2Corinthians 3 as the ‘ministration of condemnation and death, engraven in stones’; the law the Hebrews were kept under UNTIL the faith to be revealed; a law of faith and the Spirit, expressed through the Gospel; a message of salvation based in the law of faith and the Spirit; not the previous law of sin and death; the ministration of condemnation and death, engraven in stones.

That previous law produces wrath and makes all guilty of sin: Lawless in relation to the New Covenant law of faith and the Spirit. Lawless in relation to the Gospel. Lawless in relation to the OC law, that was given to the lawless, faithless.

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

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

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

Old Heart — New Heart

The rationalization for keeping the law is so that one does not sin; sin being defined by the advocates of the law as the result of transgressing the law.

There are several things wrong with this belief.

Not all transgressions of the law resulted in a charge of sin. Jesus pointed out examples, and He is the ultimate authority on the subject. When it came to the Sabbath, He worked, and declared good works lawful; not “lawless” and thus not a sin, even though the Sabbath law was transgressed by anyone who did “any” work.

By working on the Sabbath; transgressing the Sabbath commandment “as is” those who insist the law be kept, especially the Sabbath, exposed themselves, unwittingly, that they held the law in higher esteem than they do God. They made the law; even the Sabbath, as greater than God; another god besides (along side of) God.

Adventists, for example, go so far as to assign the attributes of God to that law, claiming it to be “moral” as well as “eternal,” “unchanging,” and most egregious of all, “a transcript of God’s character.”

To “sin” against the law is to sin against God. To obey the law is to obey God, where once again, equivocation between God and the law is established. They become nearly indistinguishable.

Another flaw of this argument has to do with how God judges, and He does not judge according to the law and whether someone keeps it or not. God judges “righteous” judgment, according to the heart. God knows that those with the “deceitful and desperately wicked hearts; those who have hearts of stone and evil hearts of unbelief, will act accordingly, right down to even their thoughts and imaginations, reflecting the evil that resides within. They will transgress the law as a result, leading to their just condemnation spelled out in the law. The law provides the last nail in the evil person’s coffin. At issue here is how evil minded people think, where they are influenced by a deceptive “heart.” They shift the problem from themselves regarding what they are by nature, to sin being just a problem of behavior and behavior modification so that, if you don’t transgress the law, your problem is solved without ever addressing the heart that is sinful, regardless, and condemned, regardless. For a person with an evil heart only produces evil works in the sight of God. An evil person is incapable of doing anything truly good, seeing as the motive behind anything and everything they do is an evil heart that seeks its own advantage in everything they do.

The law condemns sin in all of its forms and manifestations. If you have an evil heart, you are evil. You are sin, personified. Keeping the law does not alter an evil heart. Keeping the law while having an evil heart is a futile endeavor. You will transgress in ways you cannot imagine, being deceived by your own wicked, evil heart.

People with wicked, evil hearts believe “wholeheartedly” that simply keeping the law solves their sin problem, while at the same time being in total denial over the other side of this coin, that is where people with a good heart; the “new heart” God provides to those who believe the Gospel, placing all their faith and hope in God for their salvation; now can only produce good fruits in the sight of God, due to the influence of that good heart where one’s motive is not about the self and self, but with God and pleasing Him; not disappointing the God who saved them from their sins.

Their sins are not remembered; there being no remembrance of sins in the New Covenant and those who are a part of it.

Those with the evil hearts of unbelief are quick to point out that Christians do sin, still trying to judge sin and others according to the law that true Christians are dead to, not under, freed from and redeemed from.

Christians will occasionally succumb to the pulls of the flesh while still in the flesh, the difference being, again, the heart; the same heart whereby God judges. Their sins; missing the mark when it comes to the glory of God, are the result of spiritual immaturity; a failure to follow through all the time with the fruits of the Spirit; a failure to do good. Contrast this with those who have evil hearts where they can do no good, being evil. All they can do is either do evil, or refrain from doing evil, which is not doing good.

Those with the deceitful and wicked hearts are incapable of any spiritual discernment. As such, all that is left to them is based in the physical and a physical religion they embrace in the hope of acquiring eternal life on their own terms. Keep the law; don’t sin, and God owes you – is obligated to save you because you don’t sin, for the most part, and when you do, you simply seek forgiveness, then it’s back to business as usual, until the next time you sin while keeping the law...

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

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

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

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. The law pointed out sin, it did not create it.

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.

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

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

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