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

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

God Judges According to the Heart

God's method of judgment is a righteous method. Legalism uses a different method entirely. As with the Pharisees, the result looks good on the outside, but on the inside is self-righteousness.

---

God declared He judges according to the heart; righteous judgment.

Mankind judges according to appearance; unrighteous judgment.

There are implications in this that mankind, with the evil hearts of unbelief, the deceitful and desperately wicked hearts of stone, are unaware of.

Mankind creates God in their own image. Man-made gods are a reflection of the men who create them. Instead of men doing the bidding of God, their gods do the bidding of man.

God gave the Hebrews a blood covenant law knowing full well what they would do with it: they would use and abuse it in order to later judge and condemn the God who gave them that law; elevating it to the status of another god besides God. The law became their god, a god they controlled and used to their own advantage, all the while appealing to the law as the “law of God” where to disobey them and the law was to disobey God.

Jesus the Christ came in the flesh and did what God does - works commensurate with the Spirit. He did these works even on the Sabbath, that demanded no ‘man’ do ‘any’ work on the Sabbath.

Predictably, the men who administered controlled the law accused Him of sin against the law for having worked good works on the Sabbath, judging with unrighteous judgment according to the evil heart of men, according to appearance. This is the type of judgment that they imbued their false god of law with, where they equivocated that law with God and the operations of God, so they mistakenly perceived that God thought like they thought and believed as they believed.

(Isaiah 55:8) For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Jesus commanded the people to judge with righteous judgment and not according to appearance… two contrasting ways of judgment where judging according to appearance is contrasted with righteous judgment. This makes judging according to appearance an unrighteous judgment, practiced by those with evil hearts who, according to Christ Jesus, can only do or perform evil works… producing evil fruits.

Even when trying to keep the law, they did evil in the sight of God, and this is in keeping with what Jesus said and taught; that a “bad tree” can ONLY produce bad/evil fruits/works.

The abuse of law resulted in evil people with the deceitful heart being deceived by their own hearts into thinking they were good and acceptable to God due to being deceived into believing they actually kept the law. In this regard, Psalms 44 is quite revealing. They could not understand why they were being punished with those things God said would happen upon disobedience when they were thoroughly convinced they were in compliance with the law; the same law Paul wrote to be the ministration of condemnation and death, engraved in stone; the letter of the law that kills.

Their perspective, seen through eyes controlled by desperately wicked hearts, could only see the law in the letter, and judge the self accordingly, with unrighteous judgment, according to appearance. “We are keeping the law, so why are we being punished as though we are not?”

To embrace the old covenant law is the ‘natural’ thing for a carnal mind to do in order to judge the self and others according to unrighteous judgment (GAL. 6:12-13), for an evil minded person seeks to accomplish two things:

1) Give the appearance of righteousness; being ‘obedient’ to the law of God. And,

2) Have the means to sate the evil desire to condemn others who do not agree with them and follow after them.

For the evil hearted, the law is a “win-win”. Any and all Scripture are simply dismissed out of hand if they contradict what their “deceitful” and “desperately wicked" hearts desire to believe as true (and there are many scriptures which do contradict them).

Righteousness comes through faith, not the law. None of the things in the following list comes from the law:

Justification (GAL. 2: 16)

Righteousness (GAL. 2: 21)

The Spirit (GAL. 3: 2)

Perfection (GAL. 3: 3; HEB. 7: 19)

Miracles (GAL. 3: 5)

Inheritance (GAL. 3: 18)

Life (GAL. 3: 21)

Grace (GAL. 5: 4)

Faith (GAL. 3: 12)

And if righteousness does not come through law, something else does: unrighteousness. Self-righteousness which is odious and obnoxious to God.

The law that produces wrath - the law that kills - produces this function against those who choose the law. They want the law; they use the law, believing that, ultimately, it will produce good things for them and “righteous” judgment against others who disagree with them; that very law stands against them, condemning them for ‘flaunting’ the law; the same law Paul stated was made for the unrighteous and not the righteous; for righteousness is derived through faith; an attribute of the Spirit, associated with righteous judgment, looking to the heart and not appearance, built into the letter 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

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

Lawlessness and I John 3

You may have heard, "Sin is the transgression of the law." A favorite Sabbatarian proof-text. You may have also heard "lawlessness" means being without the Old Covenant law". If so, the Pharisees should have been the least lawless people in Israel. Yet Jesus accused them of lawlessness. There is more to lawlessness than the law.

---

In my last post, "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", I wrote about how "keep My commandments" did not refer to the Ten Commandments. We learned what "commandments" means. Today, I want to discuss another proof text for law-keeping: I John 3: 4. Let's see what "lawlessness" means.

The Bible was not written in KJV English

When I was a Sabbatarian, I took the word "lawlessness" to mean "being without the law". The Old Covenant law, that is. I mean, just look at the word: law-less. Even the Greek word anomos (ἄνομος) literally translates to "without law". Can it get plainer than that? Mainstream Christians claim they are under grace rather than law, but isn't that the very definition of 'lawlessness' which Jesus and the Apostles spoke out against? 

I understand how easy it is to come to this conclusion, but the conclusion is not built on a careful examination of the concept of lawlessness. It's built on what I just said, the word itself. Granted it is an obvious conclusion, but is it the right conclusion? For example, are you reckless only when you don't have any reck?

If anyone was ever in favor of the Old Covenant law, it was the Pharisees. If we are going to take this word on face value, then Jesus accused the most law-oriented people in Israel of being the ones who possessed the least law. 
They had the full law yet did not have the law? How does that work?

This is not lost on Sabbatarians. We simply concluded they had too much law. The Pharisees added to it, and that was just as bad as taking away from it (DEU. 4: 2).
But doesn't having too much law break the definition of "being without the law"? Too much law is the opposite of no law.

As a Sabbatarian, I would have responded that the Pharisees were nullifying the law with their traditions (MAT. 15: 6). They were using traditions and interpretations to remove God's intent for the law. They were spiritually lawless.

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. Do you see how the argument is subtly moving away from "without Torah" towards something much deeper?

My point in this back and forth is to demonstrate that even those who define lawlessness as 'not having the Old Covenant law' know it is not so simple.

How does this all tie together? What is lawlessness? How can those who are the most focused on the law be lawless? Is sin defined as breaking the Old Covenant law? What does any of this have to do with Christians in the New Covenant? And are grace-based Christians guilty of the same offense as the Pharisees?

Today's article is going to rely on you having read the Road to Sabbatarianism series. If you read that series, you will be much better prepared to understand some concepts in this article.

Let's start with the prime proof-text of this view.

KJV ONLY

In Sabbatarian theology, few verses are more foundational than this one: 

(I JON. 3: 4) [KJV] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Not just this verse, but the King James Version rendering of this verse, specifically. The conclusion we are supposed to reach is, "If the definition of sin is to violate the law, then don't violate the law!" It overrides practically any discussion on how Covenants work.

But here's the thing - that's not what the verse actually says.

hē [the] hamartia [sin] estin [is] hē [the] anomia [lawlessness]

Sin is lawlessness.

Don't understand the difference? Let's walk through this together.

The KJV translators rendered the single Greek word anomia (ἀνομία) as “transgression of the law.” But “transgression of the law” is not in the Greek text. Perhaps you could translate anomia simply as “transgression” or “lawlessness,” but not both.
“Transgression of the law” worked reasonably well 500 years ago, when English usage was broader and less technical than it is today. But in modern English, the phrase sounds far more specific and legalistic than the Greek word anomia supports. 

The translators of the NKJV tried to preserve the language and feel of the KJV wherever possible. Their decision to render anomia as ‘lawlessness’ here instead of ‘transgression of the law’ is telling.

With that correction in wording should come a correction in understanding. I propose John is not defining sin as literally "lacking the Old Covenant law". Rather, he is using anomia to reveal what sin is at heart (pun intended). John is adding gravity to sin.

In order to understand why John thinks lawlessness is such a terrible thing to be accused of, we need to understand what lawlessness meant to him in the first place. Let's see some examples of how the underlying Greek words were used in the Apostles' time and place.

SEPTUAGINT AND BEYOND

I don’t want to get buried in a lesson on the Greek language. Just know there are several words in play here, such as anomos (lawless; adjective), anomia (lawlessness; noun), and anomōs (lawlessly; adverb) along with their various forms. These are a family of words built around the same basic idea.

This word family appears several times in the the Septuagint; the Greek Old Testament. We know the Apostles read the Septuagint because they often quote it. Let's see a few examples.

(PSA. 32: 1) Blessed are they whose transgressions [anomiai] are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

(PSA. 51: 2) Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity [anomias], and cleanse me from my sin.

(ISA. 53: 5) But he was wounded on account of our transgressions, and was bruised because of our iniquities [anomiai]: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; by his bruises we were healed.

Clearly, these do not indicate Old Covenant law was missing. Was King David without Torah? Was Messiah bruised because no one had Torah? How can "being without Torah" be plural? "Being without Torahs"?

If you scan every instance of this word family in the Septuagint, then check how translators render those into English, you get a list with words like: iniquity, transgression, wickedness, unrighteousness, lawlessness. The idea isn't an absence or imbalance in Old Covenant law, but moral corruption and rebellion against God.

But the Septuagint wasn't the only Greek resource we can check. When we investigate how these words were used in the Qumran community (think Dead Sea Scrolls), or by Josephus, or in the wider Greek world, we find such things as: violation of social order, covenant betrayal, impurity, wickedness, disorder, spiritual corruption, opposition to God's will, rebellion.

To put that into an easy-to-digest visual:

Septuagint (moral) → transgression, iniquity, wickedness, rebellion

Qumran (covenantal) → covenant betrayal, impurity, corruption, rebellion

Josephus (historical/political) → wickedness, disorder, rebellion

Wider Greek usage (social/civic) → disorder, social chaos, impiety, rebellion

This shows us what a broad range of meanings these words had. The idea is nowhere near as simple as "without law" let alone "without Old Covenant law".

Now, notice something strange in Matthew:

(MAT. 7: 23) And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness (anomia)!’

A popular verse. You've probably read it a thousand times. But, practice lawlessness? How odd. Jesus says much the same in MAT. 13:41. Which definition of lawlessness makes more sense here?
A) Practice "without the law"
or
B) practice [the words listed above]

I'm going with B!

Consider how odd it is to accuse someone of actively doing "without the law". As if "without the law" is something you can do. Using a noun like an action is not unusual. People "commit murder" or "show mercy". But how does one commit "no law"? It's like saying, "I'm going to insufficient funds tonight." It makes no sense.

But practicing wickedness or corruption or iniquity makes complete sense.

Given this, it is not advisable to jump to the conclusion that "lawlessness" means "being without the Old Covenant law." Taking the word at face value actually misses the point.

Let's compare these two very different definitions of lawless to see which works better for the Pharisees.

ALLIES IN OPEN REBELLION

Jesus did not accuse everyone of lawlessness. Jesus criticized the Sadducees sure enough, but He never directly accused them of lawlessness. Strangely, He never directly accused the Romans of lawlessness. They seem to be the most deserving.

What was Jesus accusing the Pharisees of, then? Consider the definitions in the previous section. They were rebellious.

Hypocritical. Vain. Argumentative. Accusers. Political. Scheming. Entrapping. Fastidious about the law, but completely missing the point. Claiming they were God's people, but could not recognize Him. Using the law as a weapon to set themselves up and to beat others down.

Lawlessness is things like this. ↑↑↑↑

When Jesus accused the Pharisees of lawlessness, He did not single out the law as the problem, and He didn't offer them the law as the solution. See for yourself:

(MAT. 23: 28) Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

How can one be filled with "without law"? It's even more absurd than saying they were doing "without law".
But did you miss the part of how they appeared righteous? On the outside they were keeping the law. Paul felt Pharisees kept the law. He described it in Philippians 3, "a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee" [v5] ... "concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" [v6]. But many times he goes on to describe his own failures. So, they were not "without the law".
Others thought the Pharisees were righteous, because they were keeping the law. The lawlessness was inside ...of their hearts. God knew.

(MAT. 15: 8) These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.

I think we've fairly well established the meaning of lawlessness. Now, let's circle back again to I John 3.

LAWLESS AT HEART

(I JON. 3: 4) [NKJV] Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

Notice John says “also”: “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness.” They are separate in concept, but inseparable in practice. All sin falls under the umbrella of lawlessness. Lawlessness is all those terrible things we saw above, and sin is a manifestation of it. What I am driving at here is: sin is a symptom of something wrong inside. Something that law-keeping in and of itself cannot fix.
Did John write this to a Christian in order to emphasize the law? No. He did it to emphasize the gravity of sin!

So, we have to ask, is being 'under grace not law' the very definition of 'lawlessness' which Jesus and the Apostles spoke out against? No.

But it can be! ...if we don't take sin seriously.

We are in danger of developing the attitude that since we are under grace we can behave any way we wish and we'll just be forgiven. There are moral requirements in Christianity. In the age of grace, sin is still sinful. In the age of the New Covenant, covenant betrayal is still possible. As a good friend of mine said, "Sin is acting like you don't have any obligation to anybody but your own needs and wants." Jesus didn't only come to save you, He came so He could send the Holy Spirit to transform you. John's point is much the same message as Paul's from Romans 6. Discipleship means to become like the Teacher. If you're not becoming like the Teacher, then what are you doing?

So, what of the law? I know someone out there is still thinking the law is the medicine for sin. It's not. The Holy Spirit is.

In "The Road to Sabbatarianism - part III", we saw how both sin and righteousness can exist apart from the law. Sin is any violation of God's nature. The law was neither the ultimate source of nor the solution for sin. All of those first-century Jews who rejected their Messiah had the Mosaic law. How'd that go?
The Pharisees had the law, and everyone thought they were righteous (except the One who knows the heart). This tells us the law can either reveal the issue or it can be used to mask the issue. Because law-keeping relies on the heart, one thing it cannot do is remove the issue. If it could, then Jesus died in vain (GAL. 2: 21).
In the New Covenant, sin is not about the Old Covenant law. New covenant, new terms. And the righteousness God wants does not come from law-keeping, but from His own righteousness being credited to us by faith. 
None of this is about the old law. John never wrote "sin is the transgression of the law". The word "lawlessness" is not about the Torah. It certainly isn't about trying to find the proper balance of Torah. All of this is about the heart. It's about God and our relationship with Him.

John 3:4 may not point to the Old Covenant law, but John also does not leave us with the idea that grace means having no rules whatsoever.

(I JON. 3: 23) And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

As we saw in "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", John's antidote to sin and lawlessness is a life defined by faith and love. If you are following the Holy Spirit, would you be lawless?

CONCLUSION

Does the Bible define sin as "the transgression of the law"? No. John never wrote that.
Remember, the meme at the start of this article says, 'It's not what you think sin is, it's what does scripture say sin is.' Well, scripture doesn't say that.
John wrote, “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness”

Lawlessness is not best understood as 'being without the Old Covenant law', or 'being with too much Old Covenant law', or even 'not Sabbathing properly'. That is not what it meant in the original Greek. If it were, then Sabbatarians - who only keep about 2-3% of the law - are far more lawless than the Pharisees.
The obvious reading is misleading.

As the back and forth at the start of this post shows, even those who redefine lawlessness as "lacking Torah" eventually run into this same conclusion that I am making now - there is much more to lawlessness than meets the eye.
It isn't that one is literally without laws, but that one is figuratively without them. Spiritually without controls and boundaries. That's why you can have the law yet still be lawless (and not just the Pharisees, because we see "lawlessness" throughout the Old Testament). Lawlessness is a problem of the heart. It is about betraying the Covenant that you are in. It is a rebellion against the God we claim to follow. In effect, it is a rejection of Him.

It is lovelessness, faithlessness, hypocrisy, injustice, symbol over substance, and corruption hiding beneath outward religiosity.

It is going through the motions. It is being spiritually off course without correcting it. It's comparing ourselves to others and pointing the finger at them. It is accusing our neighbor rather than helping them. It is mouthing Jesus is your Lord, yet behaving like anything but. It is a mask of righteousness. It is claiming you keep the law when you you've missed the point. If even Satan himself can appear as an angel of light, then we humans can use law and grace to lie about our spiritual condition, too.

That is why lawlessness is such a serious accusation. John was not putting us all under the law. Rather, John was packing all the terrible meanings above into one word (lawlessness) and applying it to sin to expose what sin really is. And sin is but a symptom, a symptom of this internal problem.

The law cannot fix this. Never could. Law can only expose it ...or hide it.

I have always admired the way Armstrongism recognized there is more to the Christian walk than merely "being forgiven". There is a genuine emphasis on personal responsibility and the danger of becoming spiritually complacent. I may fundamentally disagree that this responsibility means keeping [3% of] the Old Covenant law, but I agree Christians should prayerfully consider their loyalty to the New Covenant in how they live. I believe that is what John was trying to express in his epistle.

Sin is lawlessness, and lawlessness is serious.

Here are some posts to help you move forward:

Sin Is The Transgression of The Law?
Antinomianism and Motivation of Heart
Two Trees - Two Covenants
Gardening With God, or Growing Spiritual Fruit
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
Law of Moses, Law of God

This post is somewhat of a loose series with the following articles:

Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66
The Sabbath Rest of John 14

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

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 Road To Sabbatarianism - Part III

Part 3 of 3, where we review some of the chief things that lead a person into Sabbatarianism.

---

Today we conclude talking about what, in my experience, are the top things which I've seen over the years that lead a person into Sabbatarianism.

In the previous posts, we saw the road to Sabbatarianism includes:

• Insufficient information,
• Misunderstanding who Jesus is,
• Misunderstanding the two Covenants,
• Misunderstanding the singular nature of the body of laws,
• Not Properly Understanding To Whom The Bible Was Written, and
• Not Properly Understanding the Sabbath itself.

Today's post is going to require everything we've reviewed up to this point. That's why I've saved it for last. (See if you can spot where the points above fit into the scenario below.) Today, we will see two critical errors in understanding, and then we'll see what to do about it.

Please understand that this is a much bigger topic than I can do justice to here. This is merely a surface overview, not a manifesto. I am only touching on things relevant to the topic at hand, and my hope is you will take it from here on your own. I will put some resources at the end to help you further. First, let's see how far you can make it through this post before walking away.

Thinking Laws Define Sin and Righteousness

Sabbatarianism is a symptom of a fundamental misunderstanding about sin and righteousness. 

The base assumption is that law - Old Covenant laws, Ten Commandments especially - defines sin itself, and therefore righteousness. It does not.
And therefore sin is breaking those laws, and righteousness is "keeping" those laws. (Partially keeping, that is.) It is not.
Now that I've lost most of my audience....
Refer back to our very first point in this series. In that post, I said the claim "the Sabbath is necessary for righteousness" is based on a false premise about the law. Let's see why.

Sin Without Law

The first critical error is thinking sin needs a law to exist. This is one side of the coin.

We all know there is such a thing as sin. The legalist mindset equates sin with law-breaking. Sin apart from law doesn't compute. They conclude the Old Covenant law is the only law, and so they imagine the Old law is everywhere - for Cain and Abel, for Gentiles in the New Covenant, and even for the angels. This definition causes other things to make no sense, like "sin nature", the weakness we all have to sin. (If a law isn't written, are we weak to it, or is there more to sin than written laws?) This can be taken to an extreme. "A Christ without law is a false Christ," I've heard it said. As if to say Christ must perpetually be subject to the law, even after His death. Which, of course, is contrary to the law.

If law defines sin, then there cannot be sin without law. Yet, the Bible tells us sin does not need a written law to exist.

(ROM. 2: 12a) For as many as have sinned without law...
(ROM. 5: 13) For until the law sin was in the world...
(GAL. 3: 17a) And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later...
(GAL. 3: 19) What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions...

Therefore, the claim must be false.

And before the KJV fans get angry with me, no, I am not ignoring I John 3: 4. (For more, see "Without the Law There Is No Sin".) I want to clarify that I am talking more about sin itself in the larger sense. If there is a Covenant which applies to you and a law is in that Covenant, then yes, breaking that law is a sin (the Old Covenant does not apply to you). I am not saying rules have no part to play at all. But sin in and of itself does not require a law to exist.

Righteousness Without Law

The second critical error is assuming righteousness needs a law to exist. This is the other side of the coin.

Once we equate sin with law-breaking, it seems natural to equate righteousness to law-keeping. What else could it be? Yet, the Bible tells us righteousness does not require a law to keep.

(ROM. 2: 14-15) 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness...
(ROM. 3: 21) But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
(GAL. 2: 21) I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.
(GAL. 3: 21) For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.

God is righteous, but not because of keeping laws.

Neither sin nor righteousness require a law. If not by law, then what and how are these things?

Sin

Here is a glimpse into the Sabbatarian thinking:
Murder is wrong? Yes. Adultery is wrong? Yes. Theft is wrong? Yes. Idolatry is wrong? Yes. Then, this means the Ten Commandments are still valid, and therefore Sabbath-breaking is wrong, too. False!

How??

Murder, adultery, idolatry, and etc are sins, it's true, but not because of the Old Covenant law. There is a greater principle at work, which has always been and always will be.

Jesus said the two greatest commandments were to love (MAT. 22: 34-40). Everything else hangs on these (even the Sabbath). Everything in the Old Covenant law is summed up in these two. "Hangs on" indicates dependence; because of; lower than. But above these two is love itself. And God is love (I JON. 4: 7-8). It is the nature of God which is highest. So, any violation of love is a violation of His nature. And therefore, at its very core, sin is a violation of God. David understood this about sin (PSA. 51: 4).

And that extends to us, His images. When we violate (or bless) each other, we violate (or bless) Him (MAT. 25: 40). When Saul persecuted the church, what did Jesus say (ACT. 9: 3-6)?

Sin is not just a violation of God's loving nature, but any aspect of God. His reason, justice, truth, etc. In the Old Covenant period, we see this expressed in laws, laws, laws. Like a nanny guiding Israel (GAL. 3: 23-25). But if laws, laws, laws were all we needed, Jesus never would have arrived in the first place. Now, Jesus has come and that Covenant has gone. Replaced by the very One who built it. In the New Covenant period, things have matured quite a bit. So, sin and righteousness are much more than just lists of laws. Sin and righteousness are distilled to their essence. The law described many good things. Those things do continue, but not because of the law. They continue because of God Himself. This is not a distinction without a difference.

Righteousness

When I was an Armstrongist, we would often say, "Sin is missing the mark." That is a good way to understand it! But what mark? Our answer was the law, of course (the ones we picked). Ironically, that answer misses the mark. If law-keeping were the answer, then the Pharisees would be kings! Yet, Jesus called them lawless (MAT. 23: 28). (You can see "lawless" does not mean "without law".) But if not law-keeping, then what is the standard? Isn't it obvious? If sin is violating God, then righteousness is...

(MAT. 5: 48) Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
(I JON. 3: 3) And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
(I PET. 1: 15) but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct

...mirroring Him. God Himself is the target and the standard, and God's holy, righteous perfection is expected of us. Anything less is sin.

Still think you're basically a "good person"?

Wait, what?! I can handle not murdering, but this is too much for me! Woe is me! How do we, mere sinners, ever achieve such a lofty thing??
We cannot. It's impossible.
The law was intended to help Israel realize this. Poorly keeping a handful of laws was never the solution. The law is good, but law-keeping fails because it relies on us. We are the issue.

So, I am offering you impossibility?? No.
But I just said it was impossible! Yes.  ...for us.

Look. Our own righteousness is not what God wants. It's filthy. It's incomplete. It's sporadic. It's imperfect. It's barely better than sin. (ISA. 64: 6; ROM. 3: 10.) The law is great for showing us this wretched condition of ours (and condemning us for it), but it does little at all for fixing it. Remember, it was the people who were the most fanatic about the law that killed the very Law Giver.
Begrudgingly - or worse, self-righteously - doing our law-keeping rituals and thinking it earns something from God is so far from the mark I cannot find a good word for it. Sitting idle for 1/7th of your life certainly is not going to make you more like God. Using the law as a weapon to beat others with, like Satan, when we are supposed to understand our own guilt and therefore act as attorneys for the defense, is among the worst things we can do.

Promising God that this time you're going to try even harder is not the solution. (You know you do it.) The solution to our weakness is His strength. What God wants is His own perfect righteousness within us. That is what righteousness is. His righteousness. Remember MAT. 5: 48.
Not to try harder, but to surrender.

Faith

How can anyone achieve this? Not by law. The law is all or nothing. Sabbatarians are fond of saying, "Jesus did not die so we could continue to sin." Well said! But He also didn't die so we could continue failing to achieve righteousness via the Old Covenant. There is but one way for us: faith!

(ROM. 3: 21-22a) But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.
(PHP. 3: 9) ...and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith...

This grace comes only by being one with Him through faith, He solves the problem as we are credited His righteousness and covered by His grace. This is about so much more than just forgiveness! In this life and in our present condition, the path to achieving real, biblical righteousness is not to look to ourselves but to Him. His efforts, not ours. His righteousness, not ours. Not to the law, which is beneath, but to faith and love, which is above.

Do me this favor - read the book of Romans again with this in mind. I know you don't agree with me yet, but try anyway. Especially chapters 3 and 4. See for yourself if it fits. But here is one good selection for you:

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

Once you see it, you'll see it all over in the New Testament.

(GAL. 5: 5-6) 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision [being a Jew with the law] nor uncircumcision [being a Gentile with no law] avails anything, but faith working through love.

Remember this phrase: Jesus is the law-keeper.
(ROM. 5: 19) For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
He is the only one who ever truly kept it. He is the only one who could. The law is one indivisible body. Break one and you're broken them all. In over a thousand years of law-keeping, Israel never once achieved the goal. Only Jesus, the True Israel, did. And the Sabbatarian conclusion is even more of the same frustrated failure? No! Jesus Himself tore down that system. And He replaced it with Himself (ROM. 10: 4).

When you conclude righteousness comes from laws, you stumble over Jesus, the source and goal of righteousness. But when you conclude righteousness comes from God to us through faith, you fulfill the goal of the law.

Get this in place first. Then, let our lives be an expression of this truth; of His love. It is the only way.

And that should lead you to realize this: Works are not a cause of righteousness, they are a result.

Righteousness is a proper relationship with God, and works should be an expression of the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit. For sake of time, I am not going to get into works today. But understand that "works" does not equal law-keeping. It equals love. Faith expressed in works of love. James and Paul, Peter and John all speak the same thing on this. And that is why Paul can say, "for whatever is not from faith is sin," (ROM. 14: 23b), and "love fulfills the law" (ROM. 13: 8-10; GAL. 5: 14; JAS. 2: 8).

Murder is wrong? Correct. Adultery is wrong? Correct. Theft is wrong? Correct. Then we must keep a seventh-day Sabbath, too. False!
How??
The nature of God, and faith working through love! A well-formed conscience that follows the Holy Spirit is not going to be doing evil things. They will be enjoying a Sabbath rest in Jesus Christ.
The Old Covenant and its laws is gone. A direct connection to God is brought in. Faith and love - that is the law in the New Covenant. (It has always been the law. I JON. 2: 7; II JON. 1: 5-6.)

(I JON. 3: 23) And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

The road to Sabbatarianism is paved with a fundamental misunderstandings of law, faith, love, sin, and righteousness. Sabbatarianism is not necessarily a detour away from these things, but it very easily can be.

CONCLUSION

I think that's enough. Those are the most important points, in my experience, that lead to Sabbatarianism. These are things I wish I'd known before I "studied" myself into the system. I hope they help you. There are definitely more things that could have been on the list, but I needed to choose only so many or risk dragging this out far too long.

In this series, we saw how the road to Sabbatarianism always involves:

• Insufficient information - The road to Sabbatarianism always involves not having enough accurate information which one needs to truly understand the issue and make truly informed decisions. Hopefully these articles help with this.
• Misunderstanding who Jesus is - This is the most important point in this list. Understanding who Jesus is and what He did, and following that through to its conclusion, is key not just to this but to everything.
• Misunderstanding the two Covenants - We must, must, must comprehend what a covenant is and which Covenant we belong in. Truly understanding this point alone would solve most issues.
• Misunderstanding the singular nature of the law - There are not 10 laws, nor 20, nor 500, but 613, in the Old Covenant. Do not add to nor take away from them. Keep all the law, or you're not keeping the law at all. Jesus is the only one who ever has, or could.
• Misunderstanding to whom the Bible was directly written - It wasn't to "us". But it was for us.
• Misunderstanding the Sabbath in the New Covenant - Going to church on Sabbath is never commanded anywhere in the Bible. Not once. Rest is, though. But the Sabbath day never gave rest. A new rest was promised and now it is delivered. The rest is by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. The rest is for our very souls.
• Misunderstanding sin and righteousness - Both sin and righteousness exist apart from laws. Laws only put sin on display and condemn us. Righteousness and sin are not in laws, but in our proper relationship with God. A rightly ordered relationship with God is bounded by the New Covenant. Believe, have faith, and stay true to the Covenant God made with you, and you will be counted as righteous by faith. Same as Abraham. Then, go, love God and one another.

If you spend just a little of your precious time to study these things before you rush off to a Sabbatarian church, you may just save yourself quite a bit of headache later on down the road.

Most of my target audience will never read this far. It is simply too much for the legalist mindset to accept. You, dear reader, are to be commended for making it to this point. Have these been difficult things? I do apologize. I honestly feel like this is a Christianity 101 series. The basics. At least they ought to be basics. If modern church leaders would do their jobs properly, they would be. I know this can be a very difficult topic until it "clicks" (sometimes, even afterward). There is a lot more to this topic than I can get to here. So, to help you further, I suggest a few articles:
"Without the Law There Is No Sin"
"Sin And The Law"
"Covenant Loyalty, Righteousness In Faith"
"Are The Ten Commandments Removed?"
"Works, Faith and Salvation - or Faith and Parachutes, Part 2"
"Faith, What It Aint"
"What Use Is The Old Law?"
"Common Legalist Arguments part VI"

Our Categories page has quite a few more articles to help you now that you have the basics.

Our friends over at the "God Cannot Be Contained" blog also have some very helpful material for you. They would love to help you along your journey to understanding.
Also, Rescue Ministries International has a fabulous article on the Sabbath which I highly recommend, titled "The Sabbath, the Patriarchs, and the Sinai Covenant".

I leave you with a prayer, dear reader, beloved by God. I pray the Holy Spirit fill you and guide you to a fuller, deeper faith and love in and through Jesus Christ to the glory of the Father. I pray you will be led by the Holy Spirit to a truer understanding and a more meaningful walk with Him in the New Covenant.

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

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

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

Response to SJS (Jack) [How Do We Know What Covenant We Are Keeping?]

Smilin’JackSprat,

My apologies; sometimes life just gets hectic and you can’t get things done as soon as you would like.

You said I answered incompletely with a partial quote from Hebrews 8:7 by not including V8. As I see it Verse eight says the same thing.

If there had been nothing wrong with the first, no place would have been sought for another
By saying ‘fault was found with the people’, it is saying there is fault with the OC. What I mean is, it shows what’s wrong with the OC, that it could not be kept perfectly, therefore condemning man; Gal 3:10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."
It is not mans fault that we are sinful. No man is without sin. We were sold as slaves to sin; Rom 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.
Only by keeping the OC perfectly can one be found righteous, but since no man is without sin – it shows that no man can keep it flawlessly. If there was nothing wrong with the OC and the fault was solely that of the people, it would mean people are capable of being without sin, that is; perfect, and therefore, could be found righteous by flawless observance of the OC, but that simply is not possible.
With the OC one is responsible for his own salvation, and condemned for his sins, because under the OC there is no remission of sins, Christ does not pay our debt. If one gathered wood on the Sabbath, he was to be stoned to death, no mercy, no forgiveness, and now that he has sinned he is condemned [Nu. 15:32-36]. He will not inherit the kingdom.
Since it’s not possible to be without sin, if God is to have a family, there must be another way for the debt to be paid, which the perfect Christ Jesus paid in our stead.
With the NC there is mercy and forgiveness, remission of sins. If we confess our sins, he will forgive us from all unrighteousness. [1 Jn. 1:19].
The OC did its job, it revealed sin, and it led us to Christ, through whom salvation could be gained.
Rom 6:6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—
Rom 6:16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted.
Rom 6:18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
Rom 6:20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.
Rom 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Gal 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.


430 years after Abraham
Abraham was pre-Moses, what law did he obey? The Ten Commandments, the Law of Moses, had not been given yet. What law did the fallen angels break? Any word from God’s mouth is law, but it is only law for the one(s) it is given. If he tells Moses & Aaron to deal with Pharaoh, then it is their law, no one else’s. If he tells the Israelites to do something(s), it is their law, no one else’s, unless God says so. If He tells Ezekiel to do some specific things with hair and cooking food with human excrement in the site of others, it is Ezekiel’s law and no one else’s.
Abraham’s law was whatever God told him to do, and God credited Abraham with righteousness by his faith. God had not given a contract of works; this did not come about until 430 years after Abraham. It went from Faith in Abraham’s day (earlier and later), to a law of Works at Sinai, and returned to Faith upon Christ’s sacrifice of his life on the cross, for the payment of the debt we incurred by our sins.
Again; Abraham was credited righteousness by faith. Then, with the out-of-control Israelites, he gave them rules to follow. It didn’t matter if their attitudes were undesirable - they just needed to do what they were told to do. After Christ came, it returned to faith.
The NC is heart and mind – inner law. The OC is hands – outer law, about doing, regardless of attitude.
Paul tells us that with God’s contract, as with a man’s contract, you cannot add to or take away. This tells us that the NC is NEW and not an altered OC or the same OC. If there is no NEW Covenant what was Jesus doing in Mt. 5?
He said, “You have heard [this thing] but I tell you [this other thing]. Was he undermining the OC or was he preparing them for the difference in the NC from that of the OC?
He was telling them that actions were not enough – that it was ONLY washing the outside and leaving the inside filthy. The OC did not require purity of heart and mind – only obedient actions. Of course the actions could not be done flawlessly – thus cursing those, who were subject to it, to eternal condemnation.

Jesus was showing the difference
He was showing that purity of heart and mind were of utmost importance – clean on the inside, also clean on the outside, unlike OC; clean on the outside only – filthy on the inside. Under the OC one is cut off from Christ and therefore there is no remission of sins. Only through the NC, through Christ, is there remission of sins; grace, mercy, forgiveness, cleansing.
So again, because the OC cursed man to eternal condemnation, the debt would have to be paid in a different way if God is to have a family. That is where Jesus came in. He would keep the OC law perfectly (impossible for anyone else – since no man is without sin) and thus be found pure, and therefore, worthy to pay man’s debt in full.
The OC proves we cannot save ourselves. All of this teaches us that we need God, that without him we are nothing, and can do nothing. We are saved ONLY by him; by his grace, mercy and forgiveness in the payment of our debt, by Christ Jesus.
The OC and NC are not the same covenant. God said it was a NEW covenant and he said the NC would not be like the old one. How can it be a NEW Covenant if the only thing that’s changed is that it is now written in the hearts and minds of the people? It can’t, not if it won’t be like the old one.
Our actions do not, and cannot, save us
But our belief, our faith produces actions. It is the belief, our faith that saves us.
Keeping Sabbath or a Saturday Sabbath, observing holy days – those don’t save us. Keeping TEN COMMANDMENTS don’t save us. There is NO action that can save us. Only by our belief and faith in Christ Jesus are we saved – because that means we acknowledge that our value is in his love for us, that without him we are nothing and can do nothing and that we accept HIS payment of OUR debt. No action can save us, because no man is without sin. The penalty for sin is death. There is NO way around it. The debt must be paid, so, either we pay it (eternal death), or Christ does (eternal life).
We all sin. If we fail in one single way, we are guilty. We are no less sinful than a murderer, or an adulterer or idolater. It doesn’t matter the sin – it all results in eternal death --- unless we believe in Christ Jesus, in which case, our debt is paid in full.
There are two different contracts
Jesus showed the difference in Mt.5, and we see that the Law of Moses has long been a stumbling block in; 2 Co. 3:1-18
V15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts.
16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
Were the Pharisees or teacher of the law on the path to the kingdom of God? No, MT. 5:20, 23:13.
Mt. 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
The OC would have to be kept flawlessly –or- turn to Christ and the NC.
Mt. 23:13 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

God' Law ...Some Points from jdposey

I thought this was worth reading. From jdposey; a member of AboveTopSecret.com:

Ronald Weinland Predict Large Attack On US & Opening of the Seventh Seal of Revelation
page 11

jdposey
posted on 12-1-2008 @ 08:09 AM

Originally posted by WeAreOne: "Hi all, tis only I again, It really staggers me when people try to say that we don’t have to obey Gods law anymore because people somehow have come to believe that Jesus did away with Gods law?? Matthew Chapter 5 and Verse 17 and on and on it goes, there are too many scriptures to post they tell us to obey Gods law; where have they got this idea?? Even Jesus himself observed Gods laws and annual holy days??"

jdposey: "Even Jesus himself observed God's laws and annual holy days??? You are not getting it, listen to what you said. "Even"...can you do better than Jesus? Can you do as well as Jesus? It took a while for Paul, but it finally clicked with him. Why do think Paul went to the trouble expounding himself in Romans 7:14-25. Why do you think God took the time to send Jesus, made of a woman (Flesh) and made under the Law? So everyone could go right on living under the law? All I have to say is this, I commend you, that you are able to observe every aspect of the law to the tee in its entirety, without any transgression. I have been where you are now, BUT now, I am content resting in the finished work of Christ, who lived the law perfectly, in every aspect of the shadows that the law contains and would rather trust in His righteousness which has been imputed to me. You see, when you realize that it is Christ who lives in you, the fulfillment of all that is righteous and perfect, no law, no person, not even the Devil himself can condemn you concerning anything, after all, I am dead, but Christ, it is He who dwells within and it is not my righteousness that is in question when I do fail, slip up and fall short of God's glory. How can anything or anyone condemn Jesus? What you are doing is taking the complete finished work of Jesus and saying it was not enough....now I will tag the law on to it. In essence, you are counting the death, the blood of Christ as having fallen short in its work and insulting God by saying or thinking that you can do more than what was necessary for God to send His son to address. The Law appeals to the flesh and I suppose, it will continue to do so. The very thing you are expounding, is the very thing Paul spent his time addressing."

What I would like to add, to what jdposey says here is, of course Jesus kept those Old Covenant laws. The O.C. was STILL in effect...He hadn't died on the cross yet. The New Covenant didn’t go into effect until His death, which is why He said, ‘It is finished.’
(JOH. 19: 30) When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Salvation was no longer our burden at that point, (Meaning, under the Old Covenant salvation is your responsibility in that you must keep it in it's entirety, perfectly, in order to be found righteous). He had paid our debt, died our death, freed us. (In short: Salvation is now a gift given by grace; we must accept the gift and we must love one another).
(GAL. 5: 1) It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

I strongly suggest reading GAL. 4:8-31 and understand v.21-31. It's very clear what Paul is saying here; No one under the Old Covenant inherits the kingdom. And I am quite aware that many of you who practice Old Covenant ways think your practicing the New Covenant, but you are not!

I believe the reason so many have trouble with this is because you don't understand what a covenant is. It is a contract. Just because there may be similarities in two different covenants, doesn't mean one was modified. It merely means there are similarities.

Let me share with you, if I may, the example I gave someone recently freed from O.C. Maybe this will help you with the Herbert W Armstrong/Worldwide Church of God misinformation:
'Oh! Then it's okay to steal, and murder, and lie...?'
They say this, because they DON'T UNDERSTAND it either.

Let’s look first at the word covenant. What exactly is a covenant?

NOUN
A signed written agreement between two or more parties [nations] to perform some action- a formal agreement between countries, organizations, or people / A pact or binding agreement between two or more parties to engage in or refrain from something.
A formal agreement of legal validity, esp. one under seal, [Like lambs blood?]
(Bible) an agreement between God and his people in which God makes certain promises and requires certain behavior from them in return
VERB
Enter into a covenant or formal agreement
Quest Study Bible dictionary, page 174
A mutually binding agreement between two parties…

So, then a covenant is a contract. So what would a new agreement between parties mean? Example:
A homeowner, being a party of an agreement may say, “I’ve made a new contract. You will notice there are some similarities. In the old contract, you were responsible for the cost of repairs to the house. In the new contract, I am responsible for the cost of repairs to the house. As in the old contract, you must continue to do your best to not cause damage to the house.”
If the old contract was done away with, does it mean the renters can now be careless in the care of the house, unlike in the old contract? Of course not! That contract helped the renters to become aware of how to care properly for a home, even though they could never come up with the money for repairs. Therefore, the old contract was good. However, the new contract is better because the owner now graciously pays for repairs. All the renter has to do is accept the money from him by presenting him with the receipt. Of course, they will not get the money reimbursed if they do not give him the receipt.
In the same way, Jesus gave us a new contract. Of course, we are not to blatantly sin ROM. 6:15. The old contract made us aware of sin, ROM. 3:20, 7:7 so it was good! However, in the new contract, we are no longer responsible for our own salvation. Jesus died on the cross to pay that debt for us! In other words, The Owner has said he would cover the cost of home repairs.

You see, there are similarities, but the two contracts are very different!
Under the first contract, we were responsible for our salvation because it is up to us to us to keep every single aspect of it, flawlessly! It was also an external law! It was all about going through motions, regardless of what was really going on in the heart.
Remember Jesus talking to the Pharisees about cleaning the outside but being full of dead mens bones and everything unclean inside?
But the N.C. is an internal law! It's not about going through motions, rather what's going on in our mind/heart. Because, it's what's there that makes us who we really are.

Why was the Old Covenant law given in the first place? Because the Israelites were so rebellious. Everyone clings so tightly to the 10 commandments. But people, those are only 10 examples of how to love. How many other atrocities can humans act upon others that aren't even listed in the 10? I can think of a few horrendous ones!
External. Internal.

Another example:
Sixteen year old Lisa is always coming home at 2 or 3 A.M. Seventeen year old Terry is always coming home around 8 P.M.Mom and Dad sit down with Lisa and tell her she now has a 7 P.M. curfew to follow or she will suffer the consequences. She wants to know, 'why doesn't Terry have to be home by 7 too?' Her parents reply, 'Because Terry always comes home at a decent hour without having to be told to do so.'
Why would these parents make Terry subject to this external law (curfew) when she has an internal law (comes home around 8 PM without being told to do so)?

One more thing. Some of you say that the mark of God's people is the keeping of the Sabbath. Again, that was true under the Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant God's people are known because they love one another.
John 13:34-35