Acts 15:21 - More Law Later?

Did the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 give Gentile Christians a "starter pack" of laws, with the rest to be learned in synagogue later on? That's what many claim Acts 15:21 means. Or have we completely misunderstood what the Jerusalem Council was actually deciding?

---

Today, I want to go over Acts 15. More specifically, I want to focus on verse 21. To start off, let's see verse 21 so we can refresh our memories:

(ACT. 15:21) For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

I was recently on social media - an unfortunate habit I keep telling myself I should break. The algorithm still thinks I’m SDA, so it subjected me to an article about some portion of Old Covenant law. Upon scanning the comments as I do (which is why the algorithm still thinks I’m SDA), I was surprised by how many people relied on Acts 15:21 to claim that Gentile converts were only given a few starter rules at first but then would learn the rest of the law later by attending synagogue.
One elaborated, “The Gentiles were converting to a sect of Judaism, so of course they would attend synagogue and learn Torah. How else would you interpret it?” Ah! That is the key question. How else could it, or should it, be interpreted? Because what Gentiles were joining and how they were joining it is precisely what was under consideration at the Council of Jerusalem.

If you've read this blog at all, then you know we mention Acts 15 frequently. Acts chapters 15 & 21 are some of my personal favorite material in the entire Bible. But one thing we've never really done is thoroughly investigate this interpretation of verse 21. Let's go together and see a different way to understand this verse. Fair warning: we're going to dig deep!

CHOOSE A SIDE

There were two opposing sides at the Jerusalem Council:

The first was converts from the Pharisees who claimed Gentiles must be circumcised and take up Torah law. Let's call them "Team Pharisee". Their position was that Gentiles are required to become Jews in order to be Christians.

The second was Paul, Barnabas, and Peter - who preached to the Gentiles and personally witnessed them coming to the faith and receiving the Holy Spirit without any law involved - along with James. Let's call them "Team Apostle". Their position was that Gentiles are not required to become Jews in order to become Christians.

I realize Sabbatarians will object, saying I've misunderstood the position of both teams. They believe the Apostles were all for the law, and that Team Pharisee was either A) only trying to bind circumcision on the Gentiles, or B) only trying to bind Pharisaical traditions rather than Torah law on the Gentiles, or C) only trying to bind a portion of the law - which Sabbatarians don't personally think is necessary and which they call "the Law of Moses" - on the Gentiles. They really should pick one. These explanations are very different from each other.
I simply reject all of those, and for several reasons; not the least of which is that's not what Luke wrote. I will go over this more in another post but I think by the end of this post you will better understand my reasoning.

What is the position of Sabbatarianism? That Gentiles should take up Torah law. Which team does that come closest to, by a simple reading of Acts 15? Team Pharisee.

In the letter the Council crafted to be sent out to all the churches, the very introduction reads:

(ACT. 15:24) “Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment.” 

The position of Team Pharisee was rejected outright. No such command was ever given in the first place to require the Gentile converts to be like the proselytes to Judaism in being circumcised and in keeping the law. Requiring Gentile converts to keep the law was a novelty being introduced by Team Pharisee. It was not a natural requirement from the beginning. James reaffirms this several years later (ACT. 21:25). And this reaffirmation is very bad for the "more law later" claim.

You can imagine what a difficult thing it is to take the words of the Council, which were immediately against teaching the Gentiles to keep the law, and turn them into full support of teaching the Gentiles to keep the law. That is how verse 21 is being used. An unclear verse is being interpreted in a way that completely changes several clear, key details of the chapter in the first place. But Sabbatarianism must do this. They have to have the law or they cannot have the Sabbath, and without a Sabbath there is no Sabbatarianism.

To understand why the Council decided as they did, we have to understand the background.

TWO POINTS

What do we emphasize here at ABD? Context, context, context. And what was the context of the chapter? You might say to me, "What should be expected of Gentiles now that they are called." And you would be correct. "But wait! There's more!"
The other underlying context was that Gentiles had been included at all.

Acts 15 is really the culmination of events beginning in Acts 10, and 11:1-18. You can see this in Acts 15:3 & 7-9.

The discussion in Acts 15 was essentially about two things: 1) the Gentiles having been called in the first place, same as Jews, and 2) what should be required of the Gentiles so Gentiles and Jews can live together. Many people miss point #1.

When James speaks, he begins by reiterating that Peter told a back story about how God, at the very start of Israel, "visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name". (Referring to the calling of Abraham and the creation of Israel.) Then, James goes on to cite Amos 9, where God promises to bring the Gentiles back in. Notice, James never emphasizes Sinai here. James' points were not legal; they were were all historical, regarding the rejection and prophesied reclamation of the Gentiles. God called Abraham from the Gentiles to create the nation of Israel, and from that time forward He predicted the Gentiles would be reclaimed. That had finally happened in their time. (For more, see "What About the Gentiles?".)

James finishes it up with verse 21.

My point here is that we cannot understand verse 21 unless we read it with context point #1 in mind.
Discussion on Gentile conversion. → Peter talks about Israel called from the Gentiles. → James talks about the reclamation of the Gentiles. → Verse 21.

What Sabbatarians are doing is diving into Acts 15, taking verse 21 without any context, then explaining the verse, and really the entire chapter, in light of their own doctrines. They are not taking verse 21 in the context of the discussion it comes out of. This is the very definition of eisegesis: "the process of interpreting a text by imposing one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into it, rather than drawing meaning from the text itself."

If verse 21 suddenly becomes "Gentiles will now attend synagogue and learn Torah," then it interrupts the flow of the conversation. But if verse 21 continues James' appeal to what Israel has long heard in the scriptures, then it fits seamlessly.

VERSE 21

Now that we have the context in mind, we can move on to verse 21.

(ACT. 15:21) For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

In light of the context, verse 21 is a way of saying all those present should be well familiar with the idea of Gentile inclusion, since the scriptures they had been hearing all their lives had already established the place of the Gentiles in God's plan. They all sat in synagogue and had it read to them their whole lives.

The Gentiles are included in their own right, and you all should know this.

Look at the first half of the verse: "For Moses has had throughout many generations..." Guess what that is not doing... speaking about the future! I ask you, had Gentile Christians been going to synagogue and listening about Moses for many generations? No. Who had? Israel! James is talking about the Jews, who for many generations went to synagogue and listened about Moses. The Greek Interlinear reads, "from generations of old". The Greek is ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων - “from generations of old / ancient times.” The word ἀρχαίων (archaiōn) points to the exceedingly distant past. Nothing in this indicates future. Very much the opposite.

James talks about Israel and the past; Sabbatarians conclude Gentiles and the future.

Now, let's think about this plan to send Gentiles to synagogue to learn Christianity.
Remember, the Gospel was to go to all the earth. How could Gentiles go to synagogue in Gentile lands where there were no synagogues? But it also begs for difficulty in Diaspora areas where there were synagogues. It ignores what we read elsewhere (JON. 9:22; 12:42). If even the rulers of Israel could not mention Jesus, what sense would it make to plan on sending Gentile converts to synagogue?
It runs headlong into even basic issues. How are Gentiles going to learn the spirit of the law in a synagogue?
And, if we are going to claim this was all about being against traditions of the Pharisees, then don't forget that is part of what you learn in a synagogue. I remind you that synagogue attendance itself is a tradition of the Pharisees (for more, see "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII"). How can we be against traditions of the Pharisees and very much for traditions of the Pharisees at the same time?
The Sabbatarian explanation of verse 21 is, in a nutshell, "Let's risk sending Gentiles to synagogue so they can learn everything we here claim we are against."

Now, on to context point #2.

WHAT TO DO?

Having established that the Gentiles were included in their own right as the Jews were, as it was foretold, let's move on to the second context point. The big question becomes - what should be done with the Gentiles now that we have to live together?

Here is another critical idea to understand the debate:
It is not that Gentiles were called to become Jews, as the proselytes did, but that they were called in the same way as the Jews - meaning, in their own right - and had received the Holy Spirit without first having to join the nation of Israel as was required in the Old Covenant. In the Old Covenant, Gentiles had to join the nation of Israel. And joining Israel required what? Circumcision and the law. That is why Team Pharisee was so adamant about circumcision and the law - they felt Gentiles were joining Israel. Team Apostle disagreed. They were not joining the nation of Israel, they were joining something else.

If you don't understand that paragraph, then read it again a few times until you do. It is absolutely, positively critical that you understand it.
Peter, Paul, and Barnabas witnessed the Gentiles being accepted by God into the New Covenant in a completely different way than Gentiles were accepted into Old Covenant. This was huge! This is the beating heart of the chapter (actually, of this section of Acts). And Team Pharisee did not understand it. They were trying to require the Old Covenant terms in the New Covenant.

Recall from the intro to this post how one person online said, "The Gentiles were converting to a sect of Judaism, so they naturally would be expected to attend synagogue and learn Torah." This is precisely the opinion of Team Pharisee! This quote misses what was really happening.

The quote is partly correct. Today, Christianity is seen as a very separate religion from Judaism, but back then it was not. Gentiles actually were converting to a sect of Judaism. But this is more nuanced than it seems.
The contention that needed to be resolved was - were Gentiles to become Israelites in the way of the Old Covenant, or were the prophecies about Gentile reclamation and the undeniable giving of the Holy Spirit indicating that becoming Israelites first was no longer required? To put that another way, would this sect of Judaism require Gentiles to become Jews in order to be Christians? The answer was no.
Yes, Gentiles were joining a sect of Judaism, but they were joining a sect that was fundamentally different than any other sect, and they were joining it in a way never seen before.

Gentiles were there to stay. The two nations had to become one. Jew and Gentile had to live together now. This wouldn't be a problem if Gentiles had to join Israel as the proselytes did. Team Pharisee's solution was rather practical. But if they were not to be proselytes, then how do the two live together in peace? What should be expected of Gentiles?

It was the decision of the Holy Spirit and the Council that the Gentiles were required only to keep the points from the law that all Gentiles were required to observe while in Israel: the laws required of resident aliens in Israel from Leviticus 17-18. (These are said to originate in the Noachide Laws. The Noachide Laws had always been the bare minimum of what would be expected of a Gentile in Israel, to consider them righteous. But that's for another day.)

Sabbatarians read Exodus 12:49 and conclude, "There was one law for the native and the stranger, so that must mean the law always applied to everyone." Not so. The Old Covenant was not imposed upon the nations generally. Torah law purposefully distinguished between Israelites and the nations, even excluding Gentiles in certain places - like with Passover. Only in particular situations were Gentiles brought under Israel's covenant obligations - like when a Gentile intended to worship God with Israel. If a Gentile wanted to join the Old Covenant, then one law applied for all. Only then must Gentiles be circumcised and keep the law. Otherwise, that was not required of them. The laws that consistently applied to Gentiles in Israel, whether they were joining Israel or not, were the laws of resident aliens from Leviticus 17-18.
Everyone at the Council knew this. So, that is what they decided would continue to be required. Why, because more law would come later? No. Because Gentiles were not joining Israel. That was how the law had always worked.

This decision not only goes against Team Pharisee, but it also answers the quote at the start of this section. No, they were not joining a sect of Judaism in the same way a proselyte joins Israel. The Gentiles were to remain a distinct people, and be reclaimed in their own right, by faith in Jesus Christ rather than joining with physical Israel. And the opposite is also true. The Jews could retain their laws and customs, and yet be Christian (ACT. 21:20-21). The Gentiles did not have to become Jews, and the Jews did not have to become Gentiles (ACT. 21:25).

Dear reader, I want to reiterate the most important thing of all: the nature of what is being joined has changed. And it had changed for everyone; even the Jews.

We join the Body of Christ (aka "Spiritual Israel") through faith in Christ, not the nation of Israel (aka "Physical Israel") through laws and rituals and symbolism.
And that is what Peter's claim was all about when he said, "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they." (v.11) There was now a Spiritual Israel, and both Jew and Gentile were being brought into it in their own right.
This is a very deep and groundbreaking point for the Council to realize, and easy for a reader to miss.

Notice, at no point does James say the Gentiles would learn more Mosaic law later or attend synagogue. Don't you now see why not?

ONE CHURCH, TWO PEOPLES

Sabbatarians side with Team Pharisee not only because they need the law to get a weekly Sabbath, but because they believe all Christians must behave in one way. They do not accept that there was one church with two distinct peoples who were allowed to retain their individual characteristics yet be one church. James spells this out in Acts 21 - the Jewish converts were zealous for the law but the Gentiles were taught no such thing.

That the Jews were allowed to retain their Old Covenant traditions and remain Hebrew was the whole reason they needed to impose anything on the Gentiles in the first place, else the Jewish converts would not be offended by what the Gentiles did.

The Council's decision only makes sense in a church where Gentiles were not required to join Israel. Otherwise, we have to try to make sense of it, and the "starter pack of laws" is the result. This is a solution for conditions that did not exist in the first place.

That, dear reader - the insistence that everyone in the early church did everything in the same way - is the true source of the confusion here.

SHOW US THE PROOF

I ask, in what source, biblical or otherwise, do we see evidence of that it was regular practice for Gentile converts to Christianity to attend synagogue? Answer: none.

If Acts 15:21 means that Gentile Christians would eventually learn the Mosaic law by attending synagogue, one would expect to find evidence somewhere in the historical record, or this interpretation mentioned in a commentary or an epistle - especially from the early church. The Christian church has been reading Acts for nearly two thousand years. We should find evidence somewhere. So, when does this explanation actually appear?

I have searched for an early Christian commentary that matches the claim we are examining today. I have not found a single one.

In his Commentary, in the section on Acts 15, John Calvin comes close to this, but he clearly thought only Jews would learn more later, not Gentiles. And this was because he felt it would take a while for the Old Covenant traditions to die off.
The earliest discussions that I have been able to locate of anything resembling modern Sabbatarian claims appear in the early 1800s, most notably from J. K. L. Gieseler (1818–1820). The idea that Gentiles could continue learning Torah at synagogue first appears in twentieth-century commentaries.

For an interpretation that many today call "obvious" and "original", it is remarkably difficult to locate in the older literature.

Later in Acts, Paul frequently encounters Gentiles in the synagogues, but he goes there to preach Jesus, not to further instruct those who had already accepted Him. The audience were Jews, proselytes, and God-fearing Gentiles hearing the gospel for the first time. They were desperate for more ...until certain ones realized what was really going on. Then, they tried to ruin Paul.

Acts never describes such a practice of sending Gentiles to learn the law. The Epistles never mention or command it. The earliest Christian writings never discuss it. The interpretation depends upon a historical practice for which no evidence has been produced. Show us some credible sources to back up this claim.

When I produce evidence from the early church for my claims, I hear those are all lies told by liars. Hey, believe what you want, but at least I produced something.

Now, that said, I have found evidence of Jewish converts to Christianity keeping a Sabbath, and some may have been attending synagogue (remember, there is no law about going to church/synagogue on Sabbath). However, the indications are they would also attend Christian church on Sunday. But I have found nothing that says it was a regular practice to send Gentile converts to synagogue.
Instead, what we are told is the early church met in private homes. That is the evidence we have. Not synagogues.

So, the claim that James expected Gentile Christians to learn the rest of the law later in synagogue is unsupported by the contexts of Acts 15, or the rest of scripture, or the historical record. All evidence to the contrary is dismissed. It is an assumption read into the evidence, not a conclusion drawn from it.

CONCLUSION

To answer the opening question, "How else would you interpret it?" I would interpret it by not trying to force the New Covenant to be the same as the one it replaced.

The issues before the Council were far deeper and the Council’s decision was far more profound than many people realize: the nature of God's people and how to join the Covenant had fundamentally changed. It was now centered on Jesus Christ.

Both Physical Israel and the Gentiles are joining the Body of Christ, which we commonly call "Spiritual Israel". Gentiles join the Body of Christ directly, without first joining Physical Israel, as was required in the previous Covenant. God had accepted the Gentiles as Gentiles, by faith in Jesus Christ. This was evidenced by the giving of the Holy Spirit. And none of the law was required beforehand.

That is the real news of Acts 15. Acts 15 is the culmination of events starting in Acts 10.
Verse 21 is a reminder to the Jews that they should not be surprised by the reclamation of the Gentiles, since these things were foretold and had been read in synagogue for centuries.

In short, Acts 15:21 does not teach that Gentile converts were given a temporary 'starter pack' and would later pick up the rest of the law in the synagogue. That reading interrupts the flow of James’s argument, contradicts the Council’s explicit rejection of requiring the law, and lacks support in either the New Testament or the historical record. Acts 15:21 is being used to smuggle into the Council's decision something that the Council had just rejected.

Yet, the Sabbatarians continue to say, "Moses being read in the synagogue on Sabbath means the Gentiles would be taught to keep the Sabbath law later on when they attend synagogue with the people who reject Jesus."

Except:

1. It misses the point of Acts 15.
2. It doesn't fit the context of the chapter at all.
3. It is based mainly on things the chapter does not say.
4. It literally undoes the decision of the Council.
5. It sides with those who troubled the Gentiles.
6. Nothing in the chapter says there would be more later.
7. James' reiterates the same decision years later, explicitly denying Gentiles were taught the law.
8. Verse 21 speaks about the past, not the future.
9. Verse 21 speaks of Israel, not the Gentiles.
10. There is no guarantee there would be synagogues in Gentile lands for Gentiles to attend.
11. There is no guarantee Gentile Christians would be allowed in synagogue to begin with.
12. The teachings in synagogue are not what Sabbatarians would agree with.
13. Most of the people who make this claim don't go to synagogue themselves.
14. There is no historical record indicating Gentile converts to Christianity attended synagogue.
15. I can find no record prior to the 1800s of anyone interpreting verse 21 in this way.
16. It fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the New Covenant and the Body of Christ.

To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:

The Legalist Dance
Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
Confusing The Covenants
The Plain Truth About Peter's Hypocrisy
Shadows, Nails and the Fall Holy Days
Law of Moses - Law of God - Part I
Law of God - Law of Moses - Part II
Two Trees - Two Covenants
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
Sin Is The Transgression of The Law?

Conversion to Judaism or Christianity? (on the God Cannot Be Contained blog)

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

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

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

Flesh, Spirit, and the Function of the Law

The Hebrews who were placed under the law, were conditioned by that law to believe that sin, like Adventists believe today, was strictly about transgressing the law, despite references even in the law regarding the nature of their hearts.

The heart, mind, and soul that has been corrupted by sin, exists outside the realm of the Spiritual; a realm that Scripture informs us is incomprehensible to those so infected. All they see and understand is in relation to the physical realm of a strictly physical existence. They can know God is Spirit, existing in a Spiritual realm, yet will anthropomorphize God, understanding God from their own, physical perspective.

(1 Corinthians 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

(Isaiah 55:8-9) For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

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

Man “looks on the outward appearance” and judges according to appearance. God looks on the heart and judges accordingly. This is a fundamental difference between God and man; a righteous God and unrighteous men who judge unrighteous judgment, based on appearance, and not the heart.

(John 7:23-24) If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? °Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Jesus was telling them; giving them a commandment to judge righteous judgment, and no longer according to how they were naturally judging one another, according to appearance; unrighteous judgment.

They were, being carnal, incapable of doing this. Christians, in whom now dwells the Holy Spirit, would later read this, and they would comprehend, now being led by the Holy Spirit, being guided into “all truth” that was impossible to accomplish by those strictly led by their carnal flesh and mind under the captivity of the flesh; a sinful nature.

Judging and condemning others over the Sabbath can only be accomplished through unrighteous judgment. The one making the accusatory judgment and condemnation can only do so in that manner, where there is no consideration for the heart; a heart unlike their own; a converted heart; a new heart, given them by God. To these carnal natured people who embraced a religion of law only know and judge according to physical things, and judge sin according to what a person does, despite the heart. They are locked in to the physical things. They see only physical things associated with physical acts or restraint from physical acts.

Such people cannot comprehend that the OC law was intentionally designed to condemn those of the flesh, sans the Spirit in such a fashion that their sins become utterly sinful as a result. They themselves will make an attempt to keep the law, such as the Sabbath, but the real draw of the law for many of them is the satiation of the evil heart’s desire to condemn others, and that law provides them with an ideal venue for doing so, unaware that they are sealing their own fate by doing so. You see this same mental state and condition with the Pharisees Jesus called evil children of the devil, doing the will of their father the devil.

(John 7:49) “But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.”

(Luke 18:10-12) Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. °I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

They have a greater need to use the law as a means of comparison between themselves and those they see as not keeping or living by the law. How often, for example, do you see accusations of others being “antinomian” who embrace the law of faith and the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus that frees Christians from the law of sin and death (Rom. 8:2) where they are in denial that the law they embrace is that law of sin and death – what Paul wrote is the ‘ministration of condemnation and death, engraven in stones’? (2Cor. 3)

They are the ones who are not subject to the New Covenant law of God, mentioned here in Romans 8:2 where a few versus later:

(Romans 8:7) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

 

The only law they know and understand; comprehend, is the OC law that dealt with the Hebrews who had the “deceitful and desperately wicked hearts” of stone; evil hearts of unbelief. They do not “see” this law of faith; this law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, who was God Incarnate, mentioned just a few verses prior.

They deny the law they embrace is the law of sin and death, while parroting the belief that their version of the law is what defines sin, that being the transgression of it. And what are the wages of sin?

Death.

What gives “strength” to sin so that sin condemns?

The OC law.

“But, but, It’s God’s law!!!”

Yes indeed, and it does exactly what it was designed to do: make all guilty before God, worthy of condemnation and death.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden was “God’s tree.” It was still not a good idea to partake of it.

What, in Scripture, imparted a knowledge of good and evil (sin)?

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

The law gave Paul a “knowledge of good and evil.” The law did exactly what it was designed to do, rightly; justly. The law that was holy, just, and good, performing its God given purpose to condemn the guilty, justly.

There is a strange dichotomy though with those who embrace the law, for they see how it condemns others, for they wield it themselves to participate in the condemnation of others. They simply refuse to see that it does that to them, and this is by design.

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

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

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

Choices

God desires that we choose Him over all else. This is reflected in the First and Greatest Commandment.

(Matthew 22:37-40) 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.

In order to see whether you are truly dedicated to God and have a love of God, God set up alternatives to try your faith in Him and your love of Him. It is easy enough to feign fealty in God, while despising Him in your heart.

(Mark 7:6) He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

People down through history have fashioned idols for themselves; gods made in the image of man, in defiance of God. Some idols however are more subtle, and more insidious.

Would it surprise you that God Himself set up an idol in order to see whether the Hebrews would follow Him, even as did Abraham and the Patriarchs? That God set up an idol; a false god in order to test the Hebrews that came long after Abraham and the Patriarchs, even as God set up two trees in the garden of Eden to test Adam and Eve?

(Exodus 20:1)  And God spake all these words, saying, 2  I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

What exists that someone could fashion an idol from, in the three realms mentioned; found in heaven, on earth, and beneath the earth?

Stone.

And what did God present them with? Stone tablets, engraven with the Decalogue; what Paul referred to as the 'ministration of condemnation and death, engraven in stones.' in 2Cor.3.

Moses smashed the tablets made by God, where God in turn had Moses make a replacement set, then later told Moses to engrave them with the wording found in the originals, thereby resulting in one of them forming this other god they served and obeyed; graven images of stone.

When it came to a choice between God Incarnate and that law, they opted for the law; the other "master" they served and loved, while hating Him.

Jesus stated that the Pharisees, who kept the law and administered the law, hated Him. And not just hated Him but also the Father in Heaven. Their hatred of Him was so great, they ignored the weightier matters of the law in order to use the law as the means of condemning Him. Jesus even cited Scripture to this effect.

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

Who was their “master” then in this scenario? They claimed to serve God, but they had another master they obeyed.

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

Mammon is often understood to mean “wealth” but like most words, there are nuances of meaning and understanding. It is wealth that one depends on; trusts, so that their wealth provides for them, and they rely on their wealth; not God.

The Pharisees of the Sanhedrin gave God lip service, whereas their hearts were far from Him. Their hearts, minds, and souls were focused on their place in Jewish society; their status; their condition in relation to Jewish culture. To now embrace God Incarnate was to effectively destroy everything they had worked for to get to where they were. Notice then the parallel with the wealthy man who came to Jesus and asked, “What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”

Jesus reminds Him that only God is good, but that what he could do would be to keep the commandments, which, in the narrative that follows, it is established for the reader to see that he was unwilling to actually keep the Two Great Commandments written in the law.

(Matthew 19:21-22) Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. °But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

He had another god besides God. He had another master; mammon. His wealth and his reliance on his wealth, that he placed above following God and above showing any real love for his “neighbors” who were the poor. Jesus was saying to him to abandon his treasure on earth for the treasure of heaven.

(Luke 11:42) But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

They had an almost fanatic dedication to the law; the works of the law such as tithing, while passing over; ignoring, judgment and the [a] love of God. The law; their ‘cherry-picked’ law was what they were dedicated to. They were dedicated to the works of the law that presented them before the people their dedication to the law, sans judgment, mercy, and faith; the “weightier matters of the law.”

Jesus said they hated Him without a cause; a just cause. They twisted judgment / justice in order to condemn Him using the law as the means to do so.

Notice a modern equivalent, where Sabbatarian Adventists judge and condemn others for worshiping on a day other than their sabbath, specifically “Sundays” according to the name given the first day of the week in the Roman / Gregorian calendar, where there is no precedent in either Christianity or the law of the old covenant to do so. It follows a series of non-biblical associations conjured out of thin air in order to give their condemnation the air of legitimacy. There is no justice; there is no mercy; there is no faith. Just a cold, calculated condemnation for not following them and their idol that they have set up in their minds, hearts, and souls.

The choice is still there, where an apparently ‘legitimate’ other god; an idol engraven in stone was presented to the faithless, unbelieving Hebrews that they embraced wholeheartedly; a law they never kept, resulting in their condemnation, in accordance with that law. They sinned another, greater sin, violating the First and foremost commandment in the law.

Take special note that this commandment finds exclusion in the Adventist law based solely on the Decalogue, claimed to be ‘moral’ law to the exclusion of all other commandments in the law, deemed ‘ceremonial’ by them and other Sabbatarian churches.

They love the law. In Worldwide, there was even a hymn about this theme: “O How Love I Thy Law” with a statement to that effect in the Psalms. Ironic then that the same people had little love of God, if any, for they place the law above God, claiming that even Christ Jesus; God Incarnate, was subject to it.

The very concept of having a total dedication to God without the law is anathema, and where those same people do not see the inconsistency and cognitive dissonance with their belief; claiming a singular love of God AND a love of the law, serving two masters.

Jesus came to reveal the faith that was being established by Him where the Hebrews were held captive under the law UNTIL this revelation. Jesus gave the people HIS commandments which He even contrasted to old covenant commandments such as what you can read in Matthew chapter 5. And yet, people will read that and still conclude the old covenant commandments are not only still relevant, they claim them to be Jesus’ commandments.

The choice is either Jesus, following Him and abiding by what He said, as recorded by the apostles and Luke, or what Moses recorded in the book of the law of God, specifically affecting the Hebrews who had already demonstrated a faithlessness and disbelief in what all God spoke to them prior to the giving of the law; a blood covenant law that condemned them all as a result.

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

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

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

Will of the Devil

The Hebrews, despite their rebellious actions, still believed they were following God. Even after hearing the law thundered out to them, and despite the specificity of the commandment forbidding the fashioning and making of an idol, another god besides God, they proceeded to have Aaron produce a gilded calf, then declared it to be the God who brought them up out of Egypt. In their minds, it was not an “idol” in the sense of being “another god” besides God. It was a representation of God.

People who claim to believe in God but do not, have a habit of redefining what God said into “what God meant.”

John recorded what Jesus said in John 5:17 in regards to the Sabbath, that Jesus worked on the Sabbath. Those insistent that mankind must follow and keep the Decalogue with the weekly Sabbath are quick to respond that Jesus didn’t really work any work that violated the Sabbath law, which said no one was to do “any” work on the Sabbath. For you see, “any” doesn’t really mean “any”, as in all without exception. They argue that had Jesus really worked on the Sabbath, He would have sinned, and disqualified Himself as our Savior; the “spotless” (sinless) lamb of God. In their mind’s eye, Jesus came to live a sinless life, and keeping the law is what defines sin; sin is the transgression of the law; despite other plainly made statements where He gave examples of the law being transgressed with no charge of sin.

Jesus was born sinless, being God Incarnate. And being God, Jesus was at that time the only “good” being walking the face of the earth in the flesh. God cannot sin. Yet, there are some today claiming He could have. There is no evil or iniquity in God. Ask yourself then, who would want people to believe God is not perfect; that God could sin; that God could do something evil and iniquitous?

But these same evil-hearted people believe the only way one can sin is by transgressing the law. Therefore, even God Incarnate must have kept the law, precisely. And so, Jesus’ declaration that good works were lawful on the Sabbath gets put through the legalist’s grist mill of the mind and it comes out as "exempt" works and not just “any” good work.

Jesus is not seen as the final authority when it comes to the law. That was also the case with the Pharisees. When Jesus, speaking in His defense, referenced their own examples of works done on the Sabbath, they exposed their duplicity and hypocrisy by excusing one of their own for working on the Sabbath to avoid causing distress to an animal, while condemning His actions of alleviating the distress of people, whom God sees as of greater value than those animals, who were suffering various illnesses Jesus attributed to the works of the devil. The Pharisees were, as a result, siding with the devil. Their hypocrisy and duplicity further demonstrated their hatred for Him and the Father in Heaven. No wonder, then, that Jesus referred to them as evil children of the devil, doing the works of their father the devil.

There are two examples where people came to Jesus asking Him what they could do in order to do the works of God.
In the first, the man specifically asked what “good work” could “he” do in order to acquire eternal life.

With the group of people, he responded:

(John 6:29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

When it came to the other man, Jesus first responded with the fact that only God was good. And because only God is good, only God can do good. This is another concept rejected by legalists, despite the other passages of Scripture where He spoke of good men and the good treasure of their hearts, and evil men and their evil treasures, as well as His discourse on good and bad/evil trees and the only fruit each is able to produce, with a warning that unless one produces good fruits, they, like such a tree, will be cast into the fire.

Here then are some revealing statements made by Jesus the Christ; each vehemently rejected by today’s legalist Pharisee replacements.

Jesus stated that those who came before Him were thieves and robbers.

(Matthew 23:14) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Jesus referred to the Pharisees as evil children of the devil, who did the will of their father the devil.

What did they do, what did they advocate, and what did they teach?

They taught the law. They kept the law. They kept the Sabbath. They were advocates of the law.

One more time, for emphasis. What they did Jesus attributed to them as doing the will of the devil, and everything they did revolved around the law.

Today’s Sabbatarian legalist insist real Christians keep the law, overlooking so much in Scripture.

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

Two things not to be overlooked:

They did not believe on Him, Christ Jesus. Jesus' followers that did believe on Him were those whom the Pharisees claimed “did not know the law,” and as such, would not be keeping it. Those people who recognized the One among them who was greater than the law - greater than Moses who gave them the law - they followed Him, not the law.

The Pharisees, scribes, and others kept the law. The Pharisees, the evil children of the devil doing the will of their father the devil, kept the law; advocated for the law; defended the law, and later persecuted those same followers of Jesus, over 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

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

The Two Trees

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil images the way of qualifying through our own efforts under the law. The Tree of Life images Jesus and total reliance on His merits that come to us by faith alone. Yet, some still insist the law is the path to life. It is a path, sure enough, but not to anything good.

---

This topic has been staring everyone in the face now for millennia. It is right there in the earliest commentary of Genesis, in plain sight, overlooked, ignored by generations. Recorded and presented through typology regarding perhaps the greatest deception that exists. It is the contrast between law and faith. A law of faith versus a law whose fruit is death. All represented by two trees in the garden of Eden.

There was a tree of Life and a tree of death, curiously titled 'The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil'. No one seems to ask the important questions:
“What does this tree represent, topologically”
“What does the other Tree of Life represent?”

"How is it, after God’s explicit command that Adam and Eve must not eat of its fruit or even so much as touch the tree, did they so readily decide to do so?"

(Matthew 13:35)  That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

(Revelation 13:8) And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him [the dragon; v4], whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The sin of Adam and Eve was reflected, through typology, by their nakedness and unwillingness to come before God. God in turn covered their nakedness with the skins of animals. Dwell a moment on that. Animals were sacrificed in order to ‘cover their sins’ even as the sacrifices in the law were a temporary covering of sins that could not forgive sins. This was a form of a “stay of execution”; a temporary respite from the death penalty imposed on them for having disobeyed God - but with one interesting departure which carnal people overlook: their motive for having partaken of that tree and its forbidden fruit.

This is not to overlook what God said regarding how they would, in the day they partook of that fruit, they would die, for there was indeed a death; a spiritual death.

(Ephesians 2:1-6) And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

The choice between the two trees is the same choice today, between the law, represented by that tree of death, and faith in the author of Life, represented by that Tree of Life. Access to the Tree of Life had been cut off, which was the price of disobeying God and abandoning faith in Him, but access is now being reopened as a result of the perfect sacrifice for sin and man’s reconciliation with God.

How do you get people to choose that which condemns over that which saves from condemnation? This question - and an observation of what happened in Eden, and what happened at Sinai, and what happened when Jesus arrived, and what presently happens today - is a testament to just how susceptible mankind is to deceptions. For there could hardly be a broader spectrum between the law that kills - the law that produces wrath; the law that makes all guilty before God - and the God Himself that rescues mankind from the ravages of his own sins, and from the law they embrace which condemns them to death for their sins, due to the wiles of that serpent, the devil.

Why do people still choose the law? Why do people still opt for the law that admittedly condemns sinners, where all have sinned?

They, like Eve, were convinced there was something to be gained by partaking of that fruit of the tree that represents the law, and it boils down to ego… a desire to sate the flesh and mind. It is like a rat-trap with pride as the bait. In order to acquire what is offered, all you have to do is not set off the trap; don’t sin! But we have all sinned already. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. With no concept of the pervasiveness of sin that encompasses the fleshly desires of the mind which, being a carnal mind, desires to elevate the self above others; to gain bragging rights that glorify the self, while castigating others who do not measure up to their elevated status; vainly imagining they are something to look up to and that they can and have achieved their lofty status based on their own efforts and merits. So strong is the pull of the flesh and mind that they are willing to risk the death demanded by the law against sinners, where they raise themselves up as having conquered sin by "keeping" the law so as to qualify for a greater position, role, and status in the kingdom of God.

There is a glorification of the self, not unlike what God revealed to be the sin of Satan, who sought to elevate himself and be like God is God. Law-keeping is an attempt to do the same; to elevate the self; to become “perfect” and sinless as a result of your own efforts. And like the devil, they seek to try and convince others to join them in their vain attempt at transforming themselves into superior beings. Wouldn’t it be ironic if a third of mankind followed this path to their own destruction.

The law is designed to ‘weed out’ those with a love of their own selves and a hatred of others that refuse to do as they do. The Pharisees and other ‘religious people’ of Israel hated Jesus and the Father in heaven, replacing their dedication to God with a dedication to law; viewing the law as ‘giving them an advantage’ they otherwise would not have among men. They saw it as a pathway to being superior to others, and the bragging rights that goes with it. God is relegated to the back pocket, to be presented whenever they need forgiveness for failing miserably at the game of law-keeping.

(John 7:49) But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.

This was the view of the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin - that no one knew the law like they did, and the ignorant masses were accursed. Those following the very Lawgiver “didn’t know the law” and didn’t keep the law according to their dictates and interpretations. The ignorant didn’t keep the law and were cursed as a result, and it was their job as the administrators of the law to see they were punished. They thought they knew the law - they thought they were the law - yet they neglected the weightier matters of the law.

It isn't those who are unfamiliar with the law who are cursed, it's those who don't understand the Messiah.

How is the behavior of the Pharisees any different than the condemnation you see spewed out by Adventists and other Sabbatarians, like Armstrongism, against those who have left their groups and headed out the exits? They discovered "keeping" the law was not following Christ Jesus; the Way, the Truth, and the “Tree of Life”.

Also see:
Two Trees - Two Covenants

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

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

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

Dead To Sin; Dead To The Law

When we are crucified with Christ Jesus, we are dead to sin and dead to the law which empowers sin. How can those things hold power over us any longer?

---

The legalists among us, that includes Sabbatarian legalists, are quick to charge others who refuse their interpretation of sin with being antinomian… against law.

It would almost be funny if it were not so incredibly pathetic.

These same people who claim to be followers of the law - obedient to God through the law - sanitize the law into something unrecognizable to the law; making a new version of the law which they see as “do-able.”

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

(Romans 5:12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Deciding to keep the law, especially the truncated versions created by modern day legalists and Sabbatarians, does not undo one’s guilt, once guilt is established. Nowhere does scripture state or indicate that just deciding to keep the law absolves you of sin. There is a price to pay for sins, and that price is your death.

(Romans 6:23) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The law requires a death due to sin. In order for God to justly give you that gift of eternal life - to rescue you from the clutches of sin, whose power to condemn you to death comes from the law - God had to transfer your guilt and your condemnation prescribed by the law to another, which happened to be God Himself in the personage of Jesus Christ who was God Incarnate. He took your death upon Himself.

(Isaiah 53:4-9) Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Do not neglect to read this, even if you believe you already know it; even if you have read it a thousand times before. Make this fresh in your mind.

The penalty for sin is death. You have sinned. The power for sin to demand death comes from the law. The law demands your death. Christ Jesus stepped in to pay your debt to sin, prescribed by the law, with His own death.

Perhaps the greatest insult you can make towards God is to make light of His sacrifice for you. Consider the agony, torture, and ridicule He was put through in order to accomplish that for you while you were still an enemy of God.

For the legalist and Sabbatarian conclude they should "keep" the law which they were taught defines sin, citing 1 John 3:4 partially, in an early English translation that does not reflect the Greek it was originally written in. The law does not create sin, per se. It condemns the sinner.

Sin is not some item you can put in a small box and store away; that box to many being the Decalogue; the Ten Commandments located IN the law.

We are born sinners. We start out life the children of Adam.

(Romans 5:17-21) For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Christ removes you from the condemnation of sin and the law that gave strength to sin. This is one of the great truths of Scripture that people are deceived over, so that they choose to place themselves back under the law, which can only result in coming back under its condemnation.

Christians are dead to sin (Romans 6:2).

Christians are dead to the law (Romans 7:4; Galatians 2:19).

Christians are dead to sin and the law because their debt to sin, prescribed by the law, has been  paid by another, resulting in them being LEGALLY dead to the law and sin, as though they themselves had paid the debt owed the law. If you are dead to sin, the law can no longer empower sin. The law can never require you to die, again, to the law. Sin has lost its power. The believer is forever dead to sin and dead to the law, yet now alive to God.

(Galatians 2:19) For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 

(Romans 7:4) Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

No one could bring forth fruit unto God while under the law; subject to the law. The only fruit you bring forth by and through the law is death; the fruit of the law; the just result of the law, always.

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

You could just as easily word this to say and mean the law produces wrath, like a plant produces it yield. The natural produce of plants is crops, and the natural produce of the law is wrath; a death sentence. The law “produces” nothing else. It does not produce life. If it did…

(Galatians 3:21) Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

I know that many will read this and conclude I am just using clever argumentation to fool them, to deceive them, when in fact you have already been fooled and deceived into believing lies because, deep down inside of their carnal souls, their heart of stone, your teachers have no real love of truth, and those with no love of truth are further condemned as a result (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). They have taught you a lie, and you believe a lie that you think is of benefit to you, and that lie which they have taught you is  that law is the answer -- that law-keeping is the obedience God wants of you, that you are still under the power of the law, and that law defeats sin rather than empowers it; that the law which you don't really keep will result in blessings and avoid the curses that come because of sin, such as the sin of unbelief where you insult God Himself, claiming He didn’t truly and completely remove believers from the law and the condemnation inherent within it.

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

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

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