The Rest Found In/With Christ Jesus

(Matthew 11:28-30) Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. °Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. °For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

To say Sabbatarians such as Adventists here twist the scriptures in this regard is an understatement. They mangle it. They chew it up and spit it out.

This is a rest the law does not provide. The Sabbath was a temporary respite from labor, carried out the previous six days – physical labor followed by a physical rest from physical work. The Sabbath commandment was a total ban on ANY work on the Sabbath; even the preparation of a meal, where they were to prepare their meals for the Sabbath the day before; the day of preparation, with one interesting statement made in this regard:

(John 19:42) There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

Whose preparation day? The Jews’ preparation day. Not the preparation day; the Jews’ preparation day before the Sabbath where Sabbatarians try to play cute, and claim the Sabbath was for all mankind, misapplying what Jesus said in Mark 2:27, redefining what “man” meant to the Jews at that time in their culture, where only Jews were “man.”

The Sabbatarian “definition” would mean that it was quite alright for Gentiles to be keeping the Sabbath “according to the commandment” without having to prepare for it…maybe all the Gentiles keeping the Sabbath didn’t eat on the Sabbath, fasting on that day referred to as a feast day in Leviticus 23...

Jesus makes reference to HIS rest for the soul as being in the context of a yoke and burden, with the caveat it is a light yoke and burden, which begs the logical question regarding another yoke and burden that was not so light.

(Galatians 5:1) Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Here, the liberty found in Christ, being a light yoke and burden, is contrasted to another yoke and burden that was just discussed in the previous verses and account which was about the law, given at Mt. Sinai, starting in verse 21 where Paul asks a question of those who were opting to embrace the law:

(Galatians 4:21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

They were unwittingly placing themselves, needlessly, under the yoke and bondage of the law.

Even Peter touches on this theme in Acts 15, during the debate and council at Jerusalem over whether the Gentiles should be required to become Jews first and Christians second by having them undergo circumcision, bringing them under the law according to the law.

(Acts 15:7-11) And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. °And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; °And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. °Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? °But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

This is one of those passages of Scripture, anathema to Sabbatarians, who insist the law be kept in order to demonstrate one’s devotion and obedience to God, which does no such thing. Theirs is a devotion and obedience to the law; not God. God is not the law, and the law is not God. But the law can be treated as “another god besides God” in that it was graven images of stones given to the faithless Hebrews who had already shown they would not listen to or follow God, where they ended up being given the law; even the Decalogue, not so that they would believe God, but believe Moses, “for ever.” (Ex. 19:9)

Christ Jesus; God Incarnate, offered a rest for the soul; a permanent rest from the evil works of the flesh, ultimately leading to death. This is the “sabbatismos” spoken of in Hebrews 4:9 that Sabbatarians insist is the weekly “shadow” (Col. 2:16-17) Sabbath (“sabbaton”) that was temporary, and for the physical body after six days of physical work. They are blind to the context, having a veil before their eyes. It is a rest that is a cessation of a particular work, even as God ceased from a particular work on the seventh day of Creation Week. It is “God’s Rest” entered into through faith; something the faithless Hebrews (Jews) could not do (Heb. 4:6) but they did enter into the shadow weekly Sabbath.

Those led by the flesh choose the things of the flesh; physical rites and rituals found in the old covenant law; not the new covenant law of faith and the Spirit where those shadows found their fulfillment in the spiritual realities, such as God’s Rest entered into through faith. (Heb. 3:18-19;4:1)

The Hebrews refused the rest found in/with Jesus, for they were quite comfortable with the shadow Sabbath they were given at Sinai, where all is judged according to the flesh by the flesh.

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

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

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

Stay Home for the Sabbath?

The Bible contains no requirement to go to church on Saturday, but does it require Sabbath-keepers to stay home? And where does a Sabbath day's journey fit in to this? Let's see if we can find an answer.

---

While I was studying for the article "What Do You Mean... ‘Holy Convocation’?", an interesting point came up which I wanted to go over in more depth but I didn't have the space in that article. So, I thought we could go over it here. It has to do with what ancient Israel did on the weekly Sabbath, or more specifically, where they would be.

To start, let's review the underlying issue so we know why we're going over today's topic in the first place.

Sabbatarianism tends toward legalism and fixating on commands. Sabbatarians believe the weekly Sabbath is a command for Christians and going to church is how the Sabbath is commanded to be "kept". Church on Saturday is central to their identity. Meanwhile, going to church on Sunday, specifically, is condemned in the strongest terms as a man-made tradition in defiance of the laws of the Almighty.
The catch is, there is no command to 'go to church' on Sabbath anywhere in the Bible. Search all you wish, you will not find one. That's a big part of what the post "What Do You Mean... ‘Holy Convocation’?" was all about. The Sabbath is not about when you go to church, but Sabbatarianism is.

At this point, the conversation usually shifts to traditions, but I will spare you that. Instead, I recommend the posts "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII" and "Established and Imposed".

This is the background issue that brings us to today's post. Today we ask, perhaps God did not give a command to go to church/synagogue on Sabbath, but did God command Israel to be anywhere in particular? Some will turn to Exodus 16.

PLACE

(EXO. 16:28-30) 28 And the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws? 29 See! For the Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

The Israelites, to whom the law was given, were commanded by Moses to stay in their homes for the Sabbath.

There is no doubt that this command exists. But it's more than that. I want to share this interesting tidbit from Barnes' Commentary:

"The expression in Hebrew is unique and seems almost to enjoin a position of complete repose: “in his place” is literally under himself, as the Oriental sits with his legs drawn up under him."

So, they were to stay not just at home but where they were. As we should expect, it was understood in different ways. Just look at this interesting tidbit from Adam Clarke's Commentary:

"Some of the Jews have carried the rigorous observance of the letter of this law to such a length, that in whatever posture they find themselves on the Sabbath morning when they awake, they continue in the same during the day; or should they be up and happen to fall, they refuse even to rise till the Sabbath be ended! Mr. Stapleton tells a story of one Rabbi Solomon, who fell into a slough on the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday, and refused to be pulled out."

Have you ever followed the law that closely? In my 30 years as a Sabbatarian, I never did. So much for my righteousness in the law exceeding that of the Pharisees!

For all those who ask, "can we follow Jesus and ignore the Torah," will you ignore this part of Torah?

But don't make up your mind yet. There is more to this story. The question becomes: was Israel really forevermore required to stay home for the Sabbath?

MANNA

What do we say here at As Bereans Did? Context, context, context. And what is the context of Exodus 16:29? Manna.

The Israelites were being tested with the manna and they were failing. They were told not to keep it overnight. They did anyway. God sent worms and rot. They were told not to gather it on Sabbath. They did anyway. Moses commanded them to stay home. The command to stay at home appears to be a way to get the people to follow the rules of manna collection. Can't quite collect it if you're home.

Now, we find ourselves with two options:

Option 1:
Exodus 16:29 could be understood as only pertaining to the Israelites in the Desert Wandering at that time when both manna and the law were being introduced and Israel had to learn how to navigate the new conditions; a temporary command. There is no 'this shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations' attached.

Option 2:
Exodus 16:29 could be understood as a permanent command. There may not be a 'this shall be a perpetual statute' but there also is no clear indication that it ended or was intended to end. Keep in mind, even though this might look like it was about manna collection, the manna collection was itself set up in such a way as to teach Sabbath observance. We've come full circle.

Can I justify one over the other? Well ... it's complicated.

There is no small amount of scholarly work to go on here. Just for example, see Biblehub's list of commentaries on this verse. Many commentators understand the command as being specific to the gathering of manna. Many do not. Commentators aside, what did Israel understand it to mean? Many, perhaps most, Israelites understood it as a permanent command. So, we have evidence for both options.

But! At the same time, the Israelites who did believe it was perpetual do not appear to believe the perpetual command was to stay home ...or in a ditch. I mean, there couldn't be people offering to pull that guy from the ditch if they all were all at home, or in agreement with the guy in the ditch.

Let's get more detail to see if we can make some sense of this dilemma.

DWELLINGS

(LEV. 23:3) 3 ‘Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work on it; it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings [moshevoteykhem].

This verse has implications for Exodus 16:29. I am going to pull a short selection from that Holy Convocation article:

We have another Hebrew word now: moshevoteykhem (מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם) which means dwelling places, habitations, places where people live - be that homes or home towns. The result of this is the opposite of being commanded to travel to Jerusalem. For the non-pilgrimage holy days there were no large gatherings. They were all smaller.

So, we have two places where miqra qodesh [holy convocation] can happen: at the Temple in Jerusalem, and wherever you dwell. Neither of those are 'at church'. Some portions of miqra qodesh were national and some familial. Some large assemblies and some small assemblies. Some at designated places and some wherever you happen to be.

So 'dwellings' can mean 'homes', sure enough, but must it mean homes? I don't think so. Why not? Because let's look at another place where "in all your dwellings" appears.

(NUM. 35:29) And these things shall be a statute of judgment to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

This part of Numbers 35 talks about murderers, and witnesses necessary for the death penalty, and posting bail, and refuge cities, etc. How in the world are those supposed to be 'in your house'? This is only one example. Other examples are quite similar. Insisting that dwellings must mean homes plays havoc with this and other laws.

I just do not see how we can get moshevoteykhem to always mean 'at home'. It can mean 'at home' sometimes, but not always. And if it's not always, then it's contextual. I do not see anything in the context of Leviticus 23:3 that makes me believe it should be understood as exclusively at home. Even the extremist who refused to be pulled from a ditch did not believe this meant to be at home, as certainly there was no ditch inside his house. It would be better understood as, "It is the Sabbath of the Lord in all the places where Israelites settle." In other words, in their towns. And if you weren't in your town at the time, then by implication this means something closer to 'wherever you happen to be.'

If this is how Leviticus 23:3 is understood, then this has implications for Exodus 16:29.

This detail isn't the only clue we have.

FAMILIAL

Let's look at the law for the Sabbath and note something:

(EXO. 20:10b) In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.

(DEU. 5: 14) but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.

These clearly speak in household terms. These words aren't, "You and your constituents and your townsfolk and your country sides, etc." These words aren't, "You and your congregation and your choir and your service organizer and your prayer leader and your sound crew, etc." These are familial words.

I am trying to make two points here:

First, there is a clear focus on family. Who was responsible for ensuring regular duties had stopped? The head of household. Who did the teaching on Sabbath? The parents. This isn't about going to church. This isn't about sitting for an hour trying not to fall asleep while someone else presents part 38 in a 52-part sermon series. Not a single word spent on Ministers and their fiefdoms and their importance in prophecy and how they are the only ones qualified to teach. Not one jot or one tittle wasted on "pay, pray, stay."

Second, on the pilgrimage holy days, Israel was required to assemble as a nation. But apart from those three, nothing in the laws regarding the sacred assemblies (that includes the weekly Sabbath) ever says what size the assembly had to be, or where it had to be. It could be a town, or a home, or a large gathering, or even as little as a single family, or perhaps it was two families gathered together in a home for a Sabbath visit. Leave your house, stay home, it's all good ...just don't go far.

Finally, let's wrap this up with a few smaller clues.

CLUES

There is a tiny clue hidden in II Kings that demonstrates ancient Israelites did not understand that they were required to stay home. Apparently, it was normal to go see a prophet on Sabbaths and New Moons.

(II KIN. 4:23) So he said, “Why are you going to him [Elisha] today? It is neither the New Moon nor the Sabbath.”

Ancient Israelites might not have been going to synagogue on Sabbath, because synagogues didn't exist at that time, but it seems going to see a prophet was within the realm of possibility. Going to see a prophet by definition means not staying at home. So, maybe not stay at home, but stay close to home.
Also, for all those who say the Sabbath is mandatory but New Moons aren't important, you might want to rethink that.

Interestingly, most of the commentaries I've read mention Exodus 16:29 as the source for where the idea of a Sabbath day's journey comes from.

(ACT. 1:12) 12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey.

If the Israelites, including the Apostles, understood that they were to stay at home on Sabbath, then the concept of a Sabbath day's journey should not exist. A Sabbath day's journey should be across the room. Once again, Israel saw it as a permanent command, but not to stay still or even to stay home, but to stay in their dwellings. It is a restriction on travel, but not a restriction on leaving home.

And now maybe this verse also makes more sense:

(ACT. 16:13) And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there.

How can one go to see a prophet or on a Sabbath-day's journey, or gather at a river, when they were supposed to be at synagogue? How can one be at synagogue when they were supposed to stay home? They can't.

The answer is, none of these things were required. Going to synagogue was never a requirement in the first place. Even in the time of synagogue, it wasn't mandatory to go there. But more importantly for today's article, staying home for the Sabbath appears more and more like it was not mandatory.

One last clue to point out here. There were three annual pilgrimage festivals where all the males in Israel were commanded to appear at the Temple in Jerusalem: Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. We know Unleavened Bread and Tabernacles were seven days long (Tabernacles was eight if you count the last day). There was guaranteed to be a weekly Sabbath in there somewhere. Tell me, how can one be at the Temple in Jerusalem for the annual holy days and at home for the weekly Sabbath at the same time? Not possible. But this can be done: stay close to where you are dwelling at that time.

One might wonder what the official word from Armstrongism was on this. Well, there wasn't really one. Here, read this typical comment:

"Some people ask about the mention of 'a sabbath day’s journey' in Act; 1: 12. There is no special command anywhere in the Bible limiting travel on the Sabbath. This 'sabbath day’s journey' was a custom of the Jews and is not a biblical command."
-Rod Meredith, "Rejoice In God's Sabbath!", Good News Magazine, Dec. 1957, p.5

Hopefully, you can now see why this was not correct. There is a law limiting travel: Exodus 16:29, which says, "Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." The Sabbath day's journey is not merely a custom of the Jews, it is their way of interpreting how Exodus 16:29 applied to them in light of all the other relevant evidence. Disagree with the conclusion Israel came to if you must, but at least address it. Armstrongism did not address it; it ignored it. The same way it ignores how the Fourth Commandment was written specifically for Israel. This is entirely par for the course with Armstrongism.

Meredith goes on to say how a walk on Sabbath is good but you shouldn't walk so far as to tire yourself. The Sabbath law of rest was not about staying well rested, it was about ceasing from normal activity and treating the time as holy and set apart, belonging to God, not for ordinary use. He didn't even understand the primary feature of the day. These are Sabbatarians we're talking about. What irony! A group whose entire identity is this one thing, yet they clearly misunderstand the very core of the thing.

CONCLUSION

Did God command Israel to be anywhere in particular on the Sabbath? Yes. He said to stay in place. The question is not whether Exodus 16:29 says to stay in place; it does. The question is: what does that mean, exactly, and to whom does it apply? It applies to Israel, to whom the law was given, and none besides. The evidence as I see it points away from it literally meaning 'stay in your house' (or staying in a ditch all day). There appears to be more leeway to it than that. To Israel, "place" seems to have meant something closer to 'surrounding area'. So, no, a Sabbath-keeper does not appear to be required to stay home for Sabbath.

This post isn't really about a Sabbath day's journey. That is a secondary item, but one I thought was helpful to the main point. During my time in Armstrongism, we were never told how the Sabbath day's journey came about. We read about it in Acts and dismissed it as yet another odd tradition of the Pharisees. Turns out it is built on grappling with Exodus 16:29 and other evidence, like we did today. We don't know exactly how it started or by whom, but I imagine it started because there is no clear answer in Scripture, and some Rabbi probably got fed up with being asked about it and just came up with an answer. I can't fault that.

The upside of today's article is:
Sabbatarians narrowly escape repeating the error of the Pharisees. There is no law to go to church on Sabbath, and it doesn't look like there was a law to stay home either. So, going to church does not vacate any law in favor of tradition.

The downsides include:
1) Most Sabbatarians simply ignore this command entirely. They either aren't aware of it or they simply ignore it as if it isn't there. They neither stay still, nor at home, nor a Sabbath day's journey, nor anything else besides.
2) We still have the issue of not having a command to go to church. Sabbatarianism turns an opinion about a man-made tradition into a command, all while condemning man-made traditions.
3) Sabbatarian churches are going to have to decide for themselves how to interpret Exodus 16:29. Does that make it ... a tradition?
4) This has implications for the annual holy days as well. I have the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles particularly in mind, since people often begin their long journeys home on that day.

To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:

What Do You Mean... ‘Holy Convocation’?
Established and Imposed
Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Road to Sabbatarianism - Part I
Editing The Commandments
Acts 15 - What Was Debated - Part I
Confusing the Covenants
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
For Paul, Jesus Is The Answer

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

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

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

What Do You Mean... ‘Holy Convocation’?

Does the phrase 'holy convocation' mean we are all commanded to go to church on Saturday? Does it even have anything to do with church? This article explores the meaning of this phrase and what its implications are for the weekly Sabbath.

---

As I mentioned in my recent post, "Be Your Own Harshest Critic", Bill posted a comment on social media that said, "Going to synagogue on Sabbath is not a command from God but a man-made tradition." Bill is absolutely right. We've got articles on this.
In response, a random person protested, and what could loosely be called a discussion ensued. He ended up basing his entire case on the phrase "holy convocation". His claim was that holy convocation means "going to church," and therefore the laws of holy convocation are laws of church attendance.

Well, let's look into that. He can't be the only one making these kinds of claims. And what good timing, since this topic has Fall holy days written all over it.

HOLY TERMS

Word studies are dry and academic. I know. My apologies in advance. I'll make this short and as simple as I can. We need a few things in the ol' toolbox before we can proceed.

The Hebrew phrase usually translated “holy convocation,” “sacred assembly,” or “sacred occasion” is miqra qodesh (מִקְרָא־קֹדֶשׁ). This is a singular noun. The plural is miqra'ei qodesh (מִקְרָאֵי־קֹדֶשׁ). I am just going to refer to them both as miqra qodesh because it makes things easier.
Miqra (מִקְרָא) is a noun meaning calling, proclamation, summons, or convocation.
Qodesh (קֹדֶשׁ) is a noun meaning holiness / something holy / set-apartness.

The singular and plural Hebrew phrases appear a total of 19 times in the Old Testament, and they refer to the weekly Sabbath and the annual holy days.
Interestingly, miqra qodesh only refers to the weekly Sabbath once (LEV. 23:3). Most of today's article is going to focus on the annual festivals because that's where most of the details are. If you are going to use miqra qodesh to support going to church on the weekly Sabbath, then you are going to have a very difficult time.

"Holy", strictly speaking, is not really a synonym of "righteous". The word holy indicates something was ceremonially set apart for use only in the worship of God and never for mundane, everyday purposes. For example, pots and priestly vestments were called holy, but they were not righteous. Those weren't morally upstanding pots. Also, just because something is holy does not mean it is permanently holy. Holy things could be defiled and lose their holiness. Holy things could also perish in their use, like sacrifices.

Final note:
Do not get confused that you can just interchange 'festivals' with miqra qodesh. For example, take the Feast of Tabernacles. The first day was a miqra qodesh, and the final day was also a miqra qodesh. The days in between were not. The same applies to the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The first day of Unleavened Bread was a miqra qodesh and so was the final day, but the days between were not, Passover itself was not, and the Day of Firstfruits was not. The festival period and the specific days designated as a miqra qodesh are not always the same thing.

Word study over. See? Easy peasy! Now, with that knowledge, let's move forward.

HOLY SUMMONS

I am not going to spend much time here since surely this is something we all know already, but miqra qodesh designates a religious gathering, distinct from more general assemblies that might include political or legal matters. The Septuagint often renders it with terms conveying a summoned or invited assembly (e.g., klētē hagia).

The traditional way to understand miqra qodesh is a holy convocation or sacred gathering together of people. We might ask, how many people? The Bible doesn't always specify, but sometimes it is all the males and sometimes it reads as the gatherings were on the household scale. We will get more into this in a bit.

One might get the impression that the assembly is proclaimed to be holy. Many scholars believe that is not how it should be understood, since the people need atonement. But if not the assembly, then what?

HOLY TIME

Jacob Milgrom (preeminent Jewish biblical scholar who specialized in Leviticus and purity laws) and Baruch Schwartz (biblical scholar at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and co-author of a study titled “Miqra’ Qodesh and the Structure of Leviticus 23") have argued that miqra qodesh is not really talking about the people at all, but the time. They would lean more toward the "sacred occasion" definition rather than "sacred assembly."

The time itself was declared holy, and Israel was to use the holy time for appropriate purposes. The number one feature of all is that no normal, regularly assigned work was to be done during miqra qodesh. Remember, the word holy indicates something was ceremonially set apart for use only in the worship of God and never for mundane, everyday purposes.
I will refer you to Bill's posts where he explores how the time could be used for good as opposed to evil, for example "Good and Evil Works on the Sabbath". (Hint: pay attention to what God considers good vs. evil.)

God blessing time is not unusual. Notice how we agree that it is the time that is holy when we say "holy days" (even though that phrase isn't really in the Bible) or, "God blessed and sanctified the seventh day." When you read through the list of verses where miqra qodesh appears, you will see the days themselves are referred to. For example:

(LEV. 23:4) These are the feasts of the Lord, holy convocations [miqra qodesh] which you shall proclaim at their appointed times.

Why is the time holy? If you read carefully, you will see that God expected the Priests of Israel to proclaim the time to be holy (LEV. 23:2, 4, 21, 37). That leads many scholars to believe the time was not holy until it was proclaimed holy, just as people and objects were not holy until they were consecrated by the Priests. Then, it was up to the people to make appropriate use of the holy time.

Baruch Schwartz says this:

"Nor are [miqra'ei qodesh] to be explained as “sacred proclamations,” since the proclamations would not be sacred at all; it is the [mo'ed], the times themselves, that become sacred, and they achieve this status as a result of being proclaimed. Rather, [miqra'ei qodesh] must mean something that has become a sanctum by virtue of proclamation, i.e., a thing pronounced, and thereby rendered, sacred."
-Baruch Schwartz, “Miqra’ Qodesh and the Structure of Leviticus 23", p.17

So, according to Schwartz and others, the time was consecrated through a priestly proclamation made by offering the prescribed sacrifices. It is common among Sabbatarians to think of the time as simply being holy in and of itself, but that is not really what the Bible says. Proclaiming the time to be holy is an integral part of the law; a part you cannot simply skip by using romanticizing phrases like "God's holy days."

I should briefly note, these scholars also make an exception for the weekly Sabbath. They do not see the weekly Sabbath as needing to be proclaimed holy, only the annual days, since the weekly Sabbath was built to reflect the seventh day of creation which God Himself sanctified. 

The problem that I am trying to highlight is: modern Sabbatarians are ignoring integral details in the law and importing their own ideas and traditions backward into ancient Israel. They go to church and they see modern Jews going to synagogue and they conclude that must be what ancient Israel did and therefore that must be what the law was about. So, they end up where they began - going to church is how one "keeps" a Sabbath. This person on social media was doing just this; trying to turn 'holy convocation' into 'go to church' when it is really about time and making appropriate use of it.

Going to church is not one of the commanded ways to use this time. We will see this more clearly when we look at those assemblies.

HOLY PLACE

Understand that neither assembly (the who/what) nor the time (the when) are about the place (the where). Church in this context is a place.

It is only natural that an assembly had to assemble somewhere, but the location is an additional detail in the law. The Bible does give this information, but it isn't always obvious. And holy time only sometimes pairs with holy place. Since this is true, how can it be all about going to church? It cannot.
I will explain.

Three of the annual holy days did have a specific location. Three times a year (not just one), every Israelite male was required to travel to the place where the Lord placed His name, where a priest would offer certain offerings for them (DEU. 16:16-17): at Passover/Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. (For more, see "Three Times in the Year".)
Yet, read through the commands for miqra qodesh and you will see this place is not explained anywhere near these verses.

Moses set no location at all. He didn't need to; they were all together in the wilderness. So, he said Israel would seek the place (DEU. 12:5). Joshua set the place at Shiloh (JOS. 18:1). This was only temporary, because notice God did not say He placed His name there. It was in Solomon's time that the place was set at Jerusalem (II CHR. 6:6). Why Jerusalem? Because of the Temple, not churches. The Temple is the place where the Lord placed His name. None of the commanded rituals happened 'at church' (or the Holiday Inn).

The Temple was absolutely not just a big church, and going to Temple was not similar to what we think of as church.

When you go to church, you are [hopefully] in God's immediate presence. You go there to be with other people, hear a sermon, sing, and pray.
When one went to Temple, they prepared ahead of time to be in an acceptable condition to occupy that sacred space to begin with. They visited close to the presence of God Himself, but unless they were the High Priest and it was the Day of Atonement they were never in the immediate presence of God. They prayed, certainly. But if they wanted a sermon, they had to go find a street preacher. And they absolutely did not arrive before the God of the Universe empty handed. Meaning, they brought a sacrifice. (This wasn't about money.)

It gets more complicated than just this. Oddly enough, it appears Israel's worship was both centralized as one singular nation at the Temple and decentralized to individual families and gatherings, all at the same time.

For example, take the Feast of Tabernacles again. Some portions of miqra qodesh were required to be performed at the Temple and some were required to be done at their temporary shelters. They weren't merely allowed to feast and celebrate in their shelters, they were commanded to do so.
Or take Unleavened Bread for example. Eating this bread was not optional; it was commanded. They did not just eat unleavened bread while they were at the Temple. Where do you eat? You eat wherever you happen to be when you eat.

That is just the three pilgrimage holy days. What about the other times?

The rest of the year, the common Israelite was not required to go to Jerusalem. There was no specific location for the remaining miqra qodesh at all. And I really want to emphasize this: that includes the regular weekly Sabbath.

(LEV. 23:3) 3 ‘Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation [miqra qodesh]. You shall do no work on it; it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings [moshevoteykhem].

We have another Hebrew word now: moshevoteykhem (מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם) which means dwelling places, habitations, places where people live - be that homes or home towns. The result of this is the opposite of being commanded to travel to Jerusalem. For the non-pilgrimage holy days there were no large gatherings. They were all smaller.

So, we have two places where miqra qodesh can happen: at the Temple in Jerusalem, and wherever you dwell. Neither of those are 'at church'. Some portions of miqra qodesh were national and some familial. Some large assemblies and some small assemblies. Some at designated places and some wherever you happen to be.

Let us ask... where is the Temple now? (I COR. 3:17; REV. 21:22)

This also brings up a final point. With the coming of the New Covenant, the Old Covenant law has changed. I believe all of the Old Covenant laws are obsolete because I believe the law was a singular whole. Sabbatarians do not. But where we can agree is that the "ceremonial law" is obsolete. The laws of miqra qodesh fall into "ceremonial law". Therefore, these laws of miqra qodesh are obsolete. So now we must ask, why are we building New Covenant doctrines from obsolete laws? Why are we fighting to keep some of it and discard some of it, but build what we keep on what we've discarded? How are we even having this discussion in the first place?

CONCLUSION

We've looked at the term miqra qodesh. We've looked at what it is, when it is, where it is. Then we contrasted that with how it is used by Sabbatarians (one in particular). We have seen how "go to church" is not an accepted definition of miqra qodesh to begin with. And we have seen how Sabbatarian practices are being built on certain Old Covenant laws which it seemed like everyone agreed are obsolete. The laws of miqra qodesh are inherently ceremonial.

The Bible does not command anyone to go to church on Saturday or any other day. The laws of sacred assemblies are not commands to go to church at all. What did Scripture do? It made certain time into a ceremonially holy time. For whom? For Israel, to whom that law was given. For where? Sometimes that was at the Temple, sometimes it was wherever you happened to be. But never synagogue, which was a much later development. (That is not to say attending synagogue is wrong, just not commanded.) For when? For the Old Covenant period. These are not laws for the New Covenant church. 

Some modern Gentile Christians say they are keeping the law, but when we look critically we see they are not. They are adding to and taking away from the law, which is contrary to the law. Without a priesthood and without a Temple, keeping the laws of miqra qodesh is impossible (and I for one believe this is by design). Without a priest and a Temple, how will the time be properly proclaimed holy with sacrifices? If it isn't consecrated, then how is it holy time? These are not laws where we can take 'Israel' out and plug 'us' in, and take the original calendar out and plug the modern Jewish calendar in, and take 'sacrifice' out and plug 'money' in, and take 'Jerusalem' out and plug 'feast site' in, and take 'Temple' out and plug 'church' in. And in all of it, picking and choosing from ceremonial laws which I thought everyone agreed were abrogated. God is not going to praise us as obedient to the law when we are treating the law like a buffet. As I've said a million times, if you're not keeping all the law, then you're not keeping the law at all.

The person I mentioned in my "Be Your Own Harshest Critic" post went through traditions, Commandments, proof-texting, and finally landed on holy convocation - all to avoid Bill's accurate observation that, "Going to synagogue on Sabbath is not a command from God but a man-made tradition." What does "holy convocation" mean? Certainly not "going to church."

For more, I suggest:

Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
Is Ceremonial Law Removed?
Why Not Keep Biblical Days?
Temple of God / Law of God
Physical vs Spiritual
Shadows, Nails and the Fall Holy Days
Three Times In The Year - Part I
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
Acts 15:21 - More Law Later?
Lawlessness and I John 3
Editing the Commandments
Established and Imposed

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

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

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

Polluting the Sabbath

(Isaiah 56:2) Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

I have witnessed Sabbath keepers cite this passage, while eliminating the last part of it that follows the comma in English. They believe “any” work pollutes the Sabbath, and not just evil works, seeing as Jesus made a distinction in this regard, where good works are lawful on the Sabbath. It is evil works that polluted the Sabbath; not good works. Evil works that are already evil works. Evil works are sinful works, and this brings us to another verse of Scripture Sabbath keepers treat like Isaiah 56:2, truncating it also:

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

Sabbath keepers routinely omit the first half of the verse. Sin; an event that is already evil, transgresses ALSO the law, where the English second half, poorly translated, is redundant but with a twist when you excise the first half so that it appears to say something else entirely. Instead of sin also transgressing the law, transgressing the law now labels whatever transgresses the law as sin, thereby reversing the order and meaning of the passage.

This is how desperate Sabbath keepers are in order to negate any good works on the Sabbath as lawful on the Sabbath; their fake sabbath, where they reserve the right to dictate what works are acceptable on their fake sabbath, and what works are not, thereby negating a basic teaching and truth conveyed by Jesus who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; not the Sabbath.

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Jesus Declared Good Works Lawful on the Sabbath

It sounds reasonable enough, until you factor in the rest of what He said, where He contrasted good works with evil works, with these two classifications being the only standard to judge by in relation to the Sabbath.

The implications of this declaration in its totality is unacceptable to Sabbatarianism, where the Sabbath is perceived to be a nearly complete temporary cessation of work over a 24 hour period of time, where the Sabbath commandment goes so far as to include “ALL” work, regardless of categorization.

Now, there exists this descriptive of Jesus between good and evil works in relation to the Sabbath, where good works are lawful; not a sin, and evil works that are a sin, on the Sabbath, and always a sin, regardless.

Adventism treats this disparity with hypocrisy.

Note that they created two categorizations of law; “moral” and “ceremonial” – a classification that finds absolutely no biblical support. But now, with the Sabbath and the classification of two kinds of works; one lawful and the other unlawful on the Sabbath, made by God Incarnate Himself, and they balk!

Point out to them when they talk about the law; the “whole” law as stated by James and they insist the “whole” law is just the Decalogue. Then they flip when it comes to two categories of works related to the Sabbath. There is only one classification of work on their sabbath where any work is an evil work, due to the day, unless a particular work meets their criteria for exempt work, ironically in some cases being based also on the one working, such as doctors and nurses working in hospitals.

Adventism has their own categorization of works, unspoken and unwritten, where an otherwise good work done any other day of the week becomes evil and sin on their sabbath. Same work, different classification based on what day it is. Work is not judged according to its own merit, or the one working if they are non-Adventist.

The hypocrisy is so rife, you can almost smell it.

According to Jesus, the “Lord of the Sabbath” there are these two categories of work because there are two categories of people working; good people, and evil people. He uses analogy and typology to explain; an explanation also ignored by Adventism and Adventists; rejected by them in favor of their own definitions and classifications.

There are good trees (people) and bad trees (people) where the good produce good fruits/works and the bad produce bad (evil) fruits/works.

Pretty simple and strait-forward. But simple doesn’t compute with Adventists and Adventism, especially when trying to retain a theology that contradicts the teachings of Christ Jesus; God Incarnate.

Good is always good, and evil is always evil. However, some people will teach and believe good can be evil, and evil can be good when it comes to works; like working on the Sabbath.

So a “simple” question in response to the Adventist take on sin being an otherwise good work done on the Sabbath — who calls good, evil? A good person? Or an evil person?

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

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

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

For Paul, Jesus Is The Answer

Law, grace, works, faith, righteousness, and sin all come together in our relationship with God. 

---

I've been interested lately in the root causes of Sabbatarianism. For example, read my "Road To Sabbatarianism" series. I am not talking about how Sabbatarianism originally started back in the 1500s. I mean for people today. There are big challenges in writing about Sabbatarianism and the New Covenant. There is so much to go over. In my (at this point 18) years of writing, I've written countless individual articles addressing Sabbatarianism (Armstrongism, really) from various directions. Lately, I find myself consistently going back to the nature of righteousness. I feel that is the key. Sabbatarianism, given its emphasis on law, naturally believes sin and righteousness come from laws; the Old Covenant law, specifically. I disagree. I have tried in the past to demonstrate from the Bible that both sin and righteousness can exist apart from laws. Yet, even after all this, I still have a nagging feeling that there is something I have not written about fully; there is something important that I've missed.

Today's post is about law, faith, the nature of righteousness, Paul and Jesus. It all comes down to Jesus. He is sufficient. But to understand Jesus and the law, I need to explain something about Paul.

Let's start with Jesus, though.

HE'S KIND OF A BIG DEAL

In the past, I've mentioned Sabbatarianism tends to minimize Jesus. Most recognize Jesus as the second member of the Godhead, as the Messiah, as the Passover, and as the one who died so our sins could be forgiven, among other things. Yet, they minimize Him in certain important ways.
I find this unfortunate, because there is quite a bit to understand about Jesus.

He is the member of the Godhead who made the covenant with Israel; a covenant He promised to keep. Israel failed at their end, as predicted (DEU. 4:27). Usually, here is where I would head towards Jesus' death ending the Old Covenant. And it did. But today I want to go in a different direction and emphasize God's commitment to keep the covenant. It was unwavering. In fact, it goes beyond what most people realize.

In Matthew 2:14-15, Matthew, under inspiration from the Holy Spirit, associates Jesus with Hosea's words about Israel:

(HOS. 11:1) When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.

This verse has two equally valid interpretations: Israel and Jesus. It's not either/or; it's both/and. Prophecies are rarely just predictions of the future. They are usually actions that are reenacted later on. The nation of Israel experienced many things which Jesus, in His life and ministry, reenacted. Just for example - the Massacre of the Innocents, the calling from Egypt, the forty days of temptation in the wilderness, and His baptism in the Jordan. Israel was the type, and Jesus the antetype. Yet in all places where Israel failed, Jesus succeeded.

To put it quite bluntly: Jesus is the True Israel. The Israel of God.

As both the God who made the covenant and the True Israel who kept the covenant, He is the fulfillment of both ends of the deal. God's commitment was so thorough, He took it upon Himself to keep the covenant on Israel's behalf. Though the nation of Israel failed, He would not let that be the end of it. That is why I say God's commitment to keep the covenant goes beyond what most people realize. They know God kept His end of the covenant, and they know Jesus kept the law, but dots aren't usually connected that He also kept man's end of the Covenant. It has been kept. Perfectly. He fulfilled it. All of it. This has implications; implications that are not explored in Sabbatarianism.

Now, read this and really chew on it:

He is the law-keeper. 

He is the giver. He is the goal. He is the keeper. Mainstream Christianity and Sabbatarianism argue endlessly over the meaning of the word "end" in Romans 10:4: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Sabbatarians say He is the goal. Mainstream Christians say He is the completion. Guess what... you're both right!
It all pointed to Him; He is the ultimate intention of it; He is the final termination of it. All of it.

And now, read this and really chew on it:

In faith, you are one with Him.

Physical Israel did not keep the law perfectly; the True Israel did. They broke the Covenant; He kept it for them. And He kept it for all of us who join with Him.

Sabbatarians try to make Christianity into physical Israel in hopes of getting the law to apply to all mankind. It doesn't work. We do not become physical Israel; we become Spiritual Israel. When we are baptized, we do not join the physical nation of Israel; we join the Body of Christ. (For more, read "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VII" and "Acts 15 - What Was Debated? - Part I".) But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that by joining the Body of Christ we do join physical Israel. It still doesn't matter. You are only Israel because you've joined Jesus ...the One who fulfilled and then terminated the Covenant for you. There is nothing left in that Covenant for you to do.

I went back and forth in my mind over starting this post with Paul or starting it with Jesus. I decided to start with Jesus and then go to Paul. It seemed fitting. With those things we just reviewed in mind, let's go to Paul now, because what we just reviewed would come as no surprise to Paul.

PAUL'S PERSPECTIVE

Have you ever wondered how there can be such a dichotomy in how we understand Paul? In places, he seems to be so very much against works of the law, yet in other places, he seems to be very much for the law. Grace in one place, works in another. Law here; faith there. Mainstream Christianity emphasizing one part; Sabbatarianism emphasizing the other. Why is that?

The answer is because Saul was a believing Jew, a Pharisee of Pharisees, but once he encountered the Christ event, which he could not simply deny, he realized that everything he once knew had to be reconfigured to fit with the Christ event. Jesus Christ had fundamentally altered the game, and Paul - the very one who persecuted the church because he refused to believe the game could be altered - had to come to grips with this new reality. God had changed things, and it was all predicted in the Scriptures. Paul had the law, and Paul had grace, and Paul had Christ, then Paul had to understand how they all fit together. His solution: Jesus is the answer.

The Covenant was given to Israel, but they found themselves time and again under foreign control. The law was bringing about wrath. Is that all there was? If so, then how disappointing! How can Israel fulfill the promise to Abraham that in his seed all the world would be blessed if his seed were constantly in captivity (ROM. 2:24)? How Israel's soul must have longed and craved for something that would satisfy. They wondered aloud if God had abandoned them and His covenant. Lamentations 5:20 is but one of many examples. He had not! The Christ event is that thing which truly blesses, nourishes, satisfies, fulfills, and delights.

Everything that once revolved around Torah now had to be understood in a new way as revolving around Jesus the Christ. Because one who is greater than the Torah had come. This is the theme of the entire book of Hebrews (which most believe was not written by Paul, so it wasn't just Paul who understood this).

A great deal of the law, the psalms, and the prophets was about Him (LUK. 24:44). All of it now had to be reread and reinterpreted to be seen through the lens of the Christ event. What Paul had come to realize is that the only way for the law to be kept as God demanded was for God Himself to keep the law. Therefore, Christ is the giver, the goal, the keeper, the fulfiller, and the end of the law. If you want to truly observe the law, then the only way is to become one with the One who succeeded where all else failed. Become one with Christ through faith, and His righteousness, God's righteousness - which is not temporary, nor fickle, nor like filthy rags - the only righteousness that can truly satisfy even God Himself - will be yours. Not because of you and your failed attempts at law-keeping, but because of Him and His uncompromising success. It is counted to you by faith.

So this, grace-based and faith-based total fulfillment of the law by God, credited to us by faith, is the answer to why Paul in some places seems to advocate for the law but in other places seems to speak harshly against the law.
In Him, the law is finally kept and the Covenant is fully satisfied, and it could be dissolved at the death of the One who instituted it. Now, only the spirit of the law, the root purpose of the law, remains.

Paul tried to explain this many times. [I am going to put several verses here, and I do recommend you read them but I understand if you just skim. I apologize in advance.]

(COL. 2:11-17) 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

(PHP. 3:3-11) 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, 4 though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

(ROM. 2: 25-29) 25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Do you see how Paul relies on Christ Jesus? Even for death and life.
Now, I ask you - how can anyone fulfill the letter of the law when they are not circumcised? Circumcision is in the law! Circumcision was the very first step toward the law. Even Armstrongism teaches this much. That is why Armstrong sought to avoid circumcision - so he could avoid the burden of the entire law (GAL. 5:3) and then he thought he could have a "law buffet". So, how can you fulfill the law when the very first step toward the law is gone? You cannot. You begin at failure. But both Moses and Paul mention circumcision without hands. How can you be circumcised if you are not circumcised? It cannot be by the letter!

What is our circumcision? (DEU. 10:16; JER. 4:4) Is it not of the heart? If you want circumcision, true circumcision, then you must look to the spirit of the law - to Christ, who circumcises the heart (EZE. 18:31; 36:26). But it's not just circumcision; it's everything. All of the elements from the Old Covenant are in the New, but different, and focused on Jesus. Sabbath, too. It has all been refocused onto Christ. All that was before were merely shadows that were cast by the reality of Christ (COL. 2:10; HEB. 10:1).

Paul had the letter of the law. He had all the bona fides anyone could ask for. He counted them all as dung so that he could grasp hold of Christ.

WE MUST KEEP THE LAW

Sabbatarians make a very large to-do about Paul saying the law was good and just. "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." (ROM. 7:12). It is! What then was the problem? The human heart was the problem. Jeremiah 17:9 says it is desperately wicked. The law from the outside cannot change the heart inside. Try as you may to correct this with law-keeping, yet it will never work. That was the issue to begin with. Does the Old Testament not demonstrate this?? Read about Paul's struggle with his heart in Romans 7:8-24. Or, Bill has several good posts about this very thing.

But God puts a new heart in you. When He says, "I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people," (JER. 31:33), He doesn't mean He will put a heart in you with the law scratched onto it, nor that He will put a heart in you so you can keep the letter of the law, as Sabbatarians so often claim. No! Why would He, when He's already accomplished everything you need? Think about it.
Do you truly keep the law? No church teaches all 613 laws are necessary. We know some of those 613 never applied to the common person. So, of the ones you feel must be kept, on your best day you know in your heart of hearts that you fail even at that fraction you attempt to keep. Over and over and over. You have succeeded no better than the Old Covenant Jews. Jeremiah 31:13 is not about God putting the letter of the law into your heart, or magically enabling you to keep the letter of the law. If it was, you'd be doing it.

In Sabbatarianism, so much is made of Paul's statement:

(ROM. 2:13) for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified

Guess what: you are not the doer of the law.
Who was Paul talking to? The Jewish converts. He goes immediately on to contrast them with the Gentile converts: "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law" (v.14). The Gentiles who did not have the law were the doers of the law. Those Jews who had the law and made their boast in the law were breaking the law every bit as much as modern people who have some of the law and make their boast in it (v.17-24). Neither they nor you are the doers of the law. Attempters only. Close doesn't count. If you break one, you've broken it all (JAS. 2:10).

But I have some very troubling news for you. You thought the law was the standard? Oh, it's much more than that.

(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

You must be holy and pure and perfect as God is holy and pure and perfect. How's that going for you?
There is only one way you're going to pull this off.

(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

He is the supreme "doer of the law". And you are credited as a "doer of the law" when you join Him.

I've mentioned many times in the past that the only way to surpass the Pharisees' righteousness is to become one with Jesus. I think this bears repeating.

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

Being one with Jesus by faith is the only way. You, by your own efforts, will never have more righteousness from the law than the Pharisees, who were absolutely fastidious about law-keeping and who lived while the whole law could be kept. It isn't that you need what the Pharisees had, only more. No. It's that you need a different kind of righteousness altogether.

It's not about the law in you and your partial, on again off again successes at "keeping" it. It's about Him in you, and you in Him. The author and goal and keeper of the law will be in you. Not to repeated failures and beating yourself up, fearfully awaiting judgment while hoping for forgiveness, but to a victory and an overcoming beyond words. Freely given and wholly undeserved. Because He took your sins on Himself so that He could put His righteousness onto you.

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

Do you want to finally keep the law? Do you want real righteousness? Then hear what I am telling you today.
You must be one in faith with Him who kept the law. He is the law-keeper. He is the circumcision of the heart. It says that in Colossians 2:11, which we read above. The law-keeping you should desire is His law-keeping, credited to you by faith. In Him, you've kept it all. Perfectly.

And then, in Him you will finally have rest. He is the Sabbath. He is the true rest. Because your striving to achieve what you have never been able to accomplish is now over. Understand, the Sabbath day is not about going to church. There is no law commanding church attendance. It was about rest. More accurately, it was not rest but ceasing from usual labors; rest is merely implied. Well, your work has ceased. He is the New Covenant Sabbath.

What was Paul's solution to his personal failure?

(ROM. 7:25) I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Through Christ Jesus. Through Him, and with Him, and in Him. He is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. He is the answer. He is sufficient.

Does it sound to you that I am making Jesus too central? It's all part of the greater plan.

(I COR. 15:28) Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

So, this is how Paul can in some places be against the law - because he was against the way things had been done up to that point; with Israel trying to obtain their own righteousness from the letter of the law yet failing time and again - and in other places be for the law - because he was a Jew who loved his Hebrew heritage and who understood the law and was for the spirit of the law, in the way things were to be done from that point on: seeking and at long last obtaining true righteousness: the righteousness of God by faith. He didn't abandon the law that was given to his people. He kept the law, in the only way it truly can be kept.

(ROM. 3:28-31) 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? [those with the law] Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? [those without the law] Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Of course we establish the law - even though we don't have the law - because we, through faith in Christ Jesus, obtain what the law was intended for to begin with. What remains then, but to observe the spirit of the law? And what is that? Faith and love.

(JAS. 2:8) If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well

CONCLUSION

Was Paul for the law? Yes! Was Paul against the law? Yes! But we must understand what Paul was doing - focusing and centering everything on Jesus. Paul was against us continuing to attempt and to fail at finding our righteousness in the law. That is the way of falling from grace (GAL. 5:4). Paul was absolutely in favor of the spirit of the law. To Paul, Jesus is the answer to both.

Jesus did not come to make the world into better Old Covenant Jews. Sabbatarians get caught up with laws because they believe sin and righteousness to be things that come from laws, and they do not distinguish between laws explicitly given to Israel and those given to all. But the Bible is clear that sin and righteousness do not come originally from laws; they come from God. Look to the One who is the source and finisher of it all. The Alpha and the Omega. Righteousness comes to us through our oneness with Jesus by faith. It's about a relationship. It's not that righteousness and morality don't matter for Christians, but where it comes from. Then go, and in spirit and in truth follow the Holy Spirit into a life of faith and love.

(ROM. 8:1) There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:

Jesus: He's Kind of a Big Deal
The First and Greatest Commandment: Greater than you Think
Imputed Righteousness - God's Exit Strategy
Physical vs Spiritual
God Judges According To The Heart
The Road To Sabbatarianism - Part III
The Law Is Written On Our Hearts - Part I
Covenant Loyalty, Righteousness In Faith
Common Legalist Arguments - Part II
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
Lawlessness and I John 3
Sin Is The Transgression of The Law?
Confusing The Covenants
Two Trees - Two Covenants

"Ten Words or THE WORD" 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

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

The Gospel, Sin, and Glory

God reveals that iniquity was found in Satan. What, exactly, was his sin; his iniquity?

He sought his own glory.

Sin is properly defined as missing the mark in relation to the glory of God. Not the transgression of the law as the children of the devil attempt to redefine sin.

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

Sin here is the Greek word “hamartia” which means ‘missing the mark’ as in shooting an arrow at a target out of range. The glory of God is out of range for mankind. It is a target; a goal beyond man’s reach. Modifying the poorly translated verse and ignoring the first half of the verse, imparts an interpretation that exceeds the boundaries of the translation.

“…for sin is ‘anomia’” where ‘anomia’ is commonly translated into three words that are synonymous: Evil, iniquity, lawlessness; not in a specific sense, such as restricted to the Decalogue, but in a general sense, for a Greek, speaking Greek, would understand ‘anomia’ from the perspective of Greek culture, and not Hebrew culture.

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

God shares His glory with no one.

(Isaiah 42:8) I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

(Isaiah 48:11) For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

The devil’s children, such as were the Pharisees, sought their own glory through the law; an elevated status among their peers. For those who reject the gospel, it is often due to their need to glorify themselves… give themselves the credit and glory even when it comes to their own salvation, believing their law keeping, according to their interpretation of Mt. 19:17, results in them saving themselves; a self-glorification that sees God’s participation in their salvation as a minor assistance. The function of the Holy Spirit is to enable them to keep the law, where they can now ‘hit the mark’ in relation to the glory of God, which again they interpret to mean the avoidance of sin by keeping the law.

Notice then the parallel with the goal of Satan to achieve parity with God through his own glorification of his own position where he sought to establish his throne on par with or equal to God’s.

(Isaiah 14:12-14) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

The Gospel is a plain and simple matter of Salvation being about what God does for mankind, where the only ‘requirement’ on our part is belief; faith and trust in God that He does exactly what He says He will do.

Those who reject the Gospel do so for one of two reasons:

1) They do not believe God. They do not have faith in God.

2) They believe they have an active part in their own Salvation where they can boast in their own ‘glory’ for accomplishing their part of the process, such as keeping the law. Their Salvation is a collaborative effort, where they can share in the glory.

There are also those who falsify the Gospel for their own gain; false prophets seeking a following; wolves in sheep’s clothing who seek to feed their own bellies at the expense of others, robbing them not only of their livelihoods, but even their life in paradise with God in His kingdom through this subterfuge. They often use the law as the means of their deception, appealing to the ego of their followers by presenting themselves as though they know the spiritual ropes of salvation.

The true Gospel resists manipulation by deceivers, due to its simplicity. Deceivers need complexity in order to sell their services to those they seek to manipulate and control. They need to present the Gospel as a complex issue with hoops that need to be jumped through in order to achieve the final goal.

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

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

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

Genesis 26:5 - Did Abraham Keep the Law?

One of the hardest things to recognize is when we're no longer trying to understand what a verse says, but are trying to make it say what we need it to say. Genesis 26:5 is a good example.

---

As I was writing the "The Sabbatarian Inner Conflict" article, I had a whole section on Genesis 26:5 written up. I figured that made the article too long, so it had to go. But I liked the topic, so it had to stay. My solution was to put it into its own post. This one.

Let's see that verse:

(GEN. 26:5) because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.

The general claim among Sabbatarians goes like this:
"If Abraham kept the commandments, statutes, and laws, as it says in Genesis 26:5, then the Old Covenant law predated Israel. And if the law predated Israel, then it applies to everyone, not just Israel." You can see this claim in multiple different official Armstrongist church publications.

But is that so? Is that the right conclusion or just the desired conclusion? At least it's worth investigating.

We have a whole post that addresses this very idea in a broader way (see "Common Legalist Arguments - Part V"). But today's post is focused on Abraham.

TROUBLES

If we read Genesis 26:5 as being about the whole law, now we have a conflict with Moses:

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

Also, we have a conflict with Paul:

(GAL. 3: 16-17a) 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later...

(ROM. 5:13-14) 13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Was Moses misinformed? Were these things given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but Moses overstated his case? No, Moses knew and accurately spoke. He is the one who recorded the history of Abraham.

Maybe Moses only meant the Covenant was not made with Abraham, meaning the Covenant only, apart from the law? No. That isn't how covenants work. We cannot separate a covenant from its terms. The covenant is its terms, and the terms are the covenant. The Old Covenant was an agreement between parties - in this case God and Israel - and it included the laws, the promises, and the blessings and curses. So, we cannot separate the Covenant from the law.
And Paul said 'the law' did not exist until Moses.

Paul spoke about two covenants - the covenant made with Abraham and the covenant made with Israel. He explained how the covenant law given to Israel, that was 430 years after Abraham, cannot annul the unconditional promise given to Abraham. (For those with detail-oriented minds, you can glean quite a bit from this one small section from Paul; things I don't want to get into here.)

Did Paul not read Genesis 26:5? We can be confident he read it. Could Paul not see these hints where the law is hidden in the time before Moses? Paul knew the Torah, he knew the history, and yet he said what he said. The difference is, Paul did not need to build a back story in order to justify his doctrines.

Maybe Paul only meant Abraham had the moral law while the ceremonial and national laws were added later? No. That's not how either covenant worked. The only "law" explicitly given to Abraham was circumcision (GEN. 17:9-14). Besides, the threefold moral/ceremonial/national division of law was not something people recognized at that time. That came much later, well after Paul's time. If the law wasn't divided this way in Paul's time, then he couldn't have had that in mind.

I know someone will complain to me, "Are you telling me Abraham didn't know about 'you shall not steal, murder, or dishonor your parents'??" I believe he did! I absolutely believe Abraham had an upstanding moral character and concern for righteousness, and I believe it might even be fair to think of it as the 'spirit of the law'. But he did not have the written law.
He didn't get the Torah law from his culture, but he could have gotten certain moral codes and cultural expectations. Abraham is believed to have lived before Hammurabi, but Hammurabi's Code arose from a culture that had already produced several previous legal codes (e.g., Code of Urukagina and Code of Ur-Nammu). Many points from these codes are also in the Old Covenant law. It doesn't matter precisely which of those legal codes Abraham might have known. (And, no, I am not saying the Torah came from these codes. Just that morality is going to follow a certain pattern.) My point is that he came from a culture that was very interested in social order. And he could have picked up those basic things from his culture, like not not stealing and not murdering. I don't accept that one needs the written law to achieve this (ROM. 2:14).

This complaint comes from the false understanding that righteousness and sin come from the law. We have reviewed in the past many times how righteousness and sin do not need come from the law (for more, see "The Road to Sabbatarianism - Part III").

Do you see what's happening here? I am purposefully grasping at things in hopes of finding a way - making a way - to explain the situation in a manner that is favorable to the Sabbath. But is that what I should be doing? Is forcing things to fit a predetermined conclusion the right way to find the truth?

We are blocked in. Both Moses and Paul said what they meant to say.
Perhaps Moses and Paul just needed a proper education from Herbert Armstrong.

Once again, the only reason we are reviewing this verse in the first place is because of the claim that string of words in Genesis 26:5 is said to indicate Abraham had the whole law. We can't dig ourselves into the "entire law" hole then get ourselves out again by switching to "only some of the law" or "spirit of the law".

TO GET WHAT WE WANT

We must be very cautious here or we run into circular reasoning. How so?
     How do you know Abraham kept the law?
     Because the law is eternal.
     But how do you know the law is eternal?
     Because Abraham kept it.
That is circular reasoning. That Abraham kept the law cannot be the conclusion and the evidence for the conclusion.

Sabbatarianism tends to start at the conclusion then works to evidence it out. In Armstrongism, we would create an explanation that sounded reasonable, then simply stop there. We would never test it out to see if the explanation works, or to see what other chaos that explanation causes elsewhere. Why would we when we have what we wanted? In this case, if we understand Genesis 26:5 as saying, "Abraham kept the Old Covenant law," because that reading looks like it supports a Sabbath-for-all, then we have what we want. There we would stop. We would never ask what that does to Deuteronomy 5 or Galatians 3. Or, what does that do to our church doctrines? We should have! Abraham keeping the law is conflicting with Moses and Paul (and the letter of the law, and the nature of covenants, and history, and Jewish tradition, and...). We cannot ignore that and hope it simply goes away. We cannot cover it up by quickly dodging to some other topic, or hurling accusations. (For another example, see "We Were Right By Default".)

Since most Sabbatarians believe there is only one set of laws, eternal and perfect and unchanging, the natural inclination is to conclude this particular string of words in Genesis 26:5 always refer to the Old Covenant law. And perhaps we might turn to a verse like Deuteronomy 30:10 for support.
One big problem I have with this is the immediate back away from that belief. How so?
As Sabbatarians say the law is eternal and perfect, they also say they do not need what is called "the law of Moses," which were any laws given through Moses other than the Ten Commandments (except certain ones, like tithing and meats and holy days). Adventists in particular are known for saying, "The law (the Ten Commandments)." So, is it all the law, or some of the law, or the Ten Commandments only? Is it eternal and perfect and unchanging, or "law buffet"?
So, two opposite and incompatible things are believed at the same time. They use Genesis 26:5 to get the whole law, only to tell you later on that they never wanted the whole law to begin with.

IN A WORD

Assuming that the words in Genesis 26:5 always refer to the Mosaic law gets one into trouble in other places as well.

For example, it is normal for Sabbatarians to interpret the English word 'commandments' as always referring to the Ten Commandments.
...except in verses that are harmful to the cause, like EPH. 2:15 or HEB. 7:18. 

(EPH. 2:15) having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances

(HEB 7:18) For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness

It appears to get us what we want in John 14:15, but it gets the Ten Commandments annulled and abolished in other places. We went over this in "The Sabbath Rest of John 14". 

Is it not obvious this assumption leads to a double standard? Oh how we love to quote, "if you love Me, keep My commandments.". That is one of the most popular proof-texts in all of Sabbatarianism! But now we must deny and obfuscate when a verse says, "there is an annulling of the former commandment." They both say "commandment". We cannot completely rely on it in one place and strongly deny it in another. If you're going to have a standard, then stick to it. This same thing affects Genesis 26:5. It is only being relied on because it says "commandments".
There is a term for this particular kind of double standard: Special Pleading.

There is no way to prove these words in Genesis 26:5 always refer to the same things - that "commandments" always refers to the same commandments and "statutes" always refers to the same statutes, etc - while there is quite a bit of reason to believe they do not. I won't go over all of the reasons here beyond Paul and Moses. We have other articles for that. My advice is to take each verse individually and prove what 'commandments' means there within that verse and its immediate context. 

Therefore, I believe the cleanest path forward is to understand the string of words in Genesis 26:5 differently. We must rethink the notion that the only thing God could have been referring to when He said, "My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws," is the exact same set of things he commanded to Israel. I propose something far more individualized.

SECOND LOOK

Let's take a quick look at one way we might understand Genesis 26:5 from a different perspective. 

When this list of words is strung together like we see in here, layered one after another, this is a way for God to say, "Abraham obeyed everything I required of him." It's individualized. It's idiomatic. It's almost poetry, somewhat like the comment, "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will," (ACT. 13:22). It isn't about Abraham doing every little thing perfectly, because, just like King David, he did not. And it isn't about God wanting everyone everywhere to do the same things. But what God asked of Abraham, he did. The question then becomes, what did God really want from Abraham?

Obviously, a large part of it was faith:

(GEN. 15:6) And he [Abram] believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

You can also read this in Romans 4:1-3, and Galatians 3:5-6, and James 2:21-24. Abraham believed God and his faith is what was counted as righteousness. Faith might be called "trust" or perhaps "believing loyalty". Not the acts, not some law, but belief in and loyalty to God was Abraham's righteousness.

That said, it isn't so simple as faith alone. His belief led him to act. 

Abraham is praised for the combination of belief resulting in action. Which actions? Law? Wearing Tzitzit? No. Various acts are mentioned, including dedication to the true God, leaving his home, journeying to Haran, being circumcised, believing he would be given a son, and ultimately offering up that son.
What is missing from that list? The written law. How could it be referring to the written law which Paul said was 430 years later and which Moses said was not given to the Patriarchs?

One might believe we can piece the law together from clues, like pointing out that Abraham tithed. Let's take a sidebar look at that one briefly.

TITHE LAW

Yes, he gave 1/10th of war spoils to Melchizedek (GEN. 14:20). But then Abraham gave the rest of it away because he went into the battle already determined not to keep so much as a shoelace so the King of Sodom could not hold it over his head later on. So:

• Those weren't things he intended to keep to begin with,
• War spoils are not listed in the law among the tithable items,
• Melchizedek was not a Levite nor an Aaronic Priest, and thus was not eligible to receive tithes under the law.

This is not a tithe in keeping with the written law. Hebrews 7:4-10 even inverts this tithe so that the Levites are the ones paying it, not to Aaron but to someone else entirely.

Armstrongism, as a branch of Adventism, teaches that tithing is required, and therefore teaches a tithe can come from money and a tithe can be received by just about anyone. But that isn't what the law says. (For more, see "Tithing - You're Doing It Wrong".)
Abraham's tithe was a tenth, yes, but not as defined under the Old Covenant law.

Someone will ask, "If Abraham wasn't keeping the law, then why did he tithe?" The law isn't the only place we find a tithe. We can dig one up in history as well.

Remember how I mentioned Abraham's culture? There were ancient Sumerian and Akkadian words for tenth and temple tithe (also Ugaritic, which would be after Abraham but before Moses). To put that simply, the practice of giving a tenth as a religious tribute or as a tax already existed in the cultures of Abraham's time and place. The idea was hardly unique to Israel. It did not have to come from Israel's law. This helps to explain why Abraham gave a tenth, yet not in a way that was strictly in line with the Mosaic Law.
If you are interested in some references, see:

• University of Pennsylvania's Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary. Look for the word "Zagu [tithe]".
• A. Leo Oppenheim, “A Fiscal Practice of the Ancient Near East,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 6, no. 2 (1947), pp. 116–120.
• A. Martirossian, “Notes concerning the Economic Activities of the Babylonian Temple in the First Millennium B.C.”

I could go on to point out that tithing is not a moral law but qualifies as a ceremonial law, in what Sabbatarians call "the Law of Moses"; same as the animal sacrifice we see Abraham doing. Ceremonial laws are said to no longer be in force. Therefore, according to their own teachings, Sabbatarians appeal to laws they themselves should not keep. Then why appeal to them?
I remind you, the purpose behind insisting Abraham kept the Old Covenant law is to support the claim, "If the law was before Moses then it is binding on everyone, and everyone should go to church on Saturday". But if the ceremonial law predates Moses, well now you've got a problem. Either everyone must observe the whole ceremonial law, or we have to ditch "before Moses, therefore binding on everyone" claim. (For more, see "Common Legalist Arguments - Part V".)

What happens after Jesus only factors in when we are talking about laws we don't want to keep. A double standard that was not thought through because as soon as we got what we wanted, we stopped.

LEGAL BRIEF

I want to take a sidestep here and point out that I am not claiming, "Abraham did not keep the law because the Bible doesn't say he kept the law." That would be an argument from silence. However, the flip side of that is the baseless assertion. We must avoid both ditches. We do not need the Bible to absolutely spell everything out for us bluntly, but we certainly do need to build a good case to believe a thing. Proof-texting one verse and front-loading it with assumptions is not building a case. We need compelling reasons why Abraham could have known about and kept the whole Mosaic law as written. I don't see that anywhere.

The Sabbatarian claim seems to be built on these things:

• We need it to be true - I honestly don't put any stock in this.
• The words commandments, statutes, and laws always mean the same things - No. We went over that.
• The tithe - I disagree. We go over this here and elsewhere. (For more, see "Tithing - You're Doing It Wrong".)
• The Sabbath was from creation - I disagree. We go over this elsewhere. Either way, this only deals with the Sabbath, not everything in bullet #2. (For more, see "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2")
• Some ancillary items like animal sacrifice and Noah's clean animals - I disagree. We go over this elsewhere. (For more, see "Common Legalist Arguments - Part V" and "Clean/Unclean for Noah".) But one thing we can say here is, if you stand on the claim that, "it predated Moses, therefore it's binding on all mankind," then you better find a seller of turtledoves. You're going to need them.

In short, Sabbatarianism has not built any compelling case that Abraham had the Torah to begin with. And half the case they do make, they walk back later on because of laws they don't want.

CONCLUSION

We might have gone into Genesis 26:5 hoping to get law before Sinai and a universal Sabbath, but if we got our wish then we would come out with animal sacrifices. We've run into problems with Moses, Paul, circular logic, special pleading with the word 'commandment', and backing away from claims we relied on earlier. In the end, there is no way to demonstrate that Abraham kept the Old Covenant law as written; a law that Moses said was not given to the Patriarchs, and that Paul said came centuries after Abraham. As for the claim that Abraham had the entire written law centuries before certain points in that law were even possible (like Passover), well, you got some 'splainin' to do!

My proposed solution has two parts:

1) The words, "My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws," should be understood idiomatically. Taking them literally causes issues with Moses and Paul (and history, and Jewish tradition, and...). 

2) They should be taken in an individualized way. Even though God no doubt wants certain things from us all, God can ask different things of different people depending on what God was working towards at the time. All that God asked of Abraham, he did.

And in the end, what the Bible unambiguously says is that Abraham's righteousness was imputed because of his faith, and his faith led to certain actions. The righteousness was from the faith, not the actions. The actions were the result. What it does not say is that those actions were specifically from the law.

Hopefully you saw how this struggle to make the words come to a certain predetermined conclusion causes all sorts of conflict in other areas. I encourage everyone to think all of their claims through to the very end and put the things we agree with to the same scrutiny as we do the things we disagree with.

Of all that I just said today, I ask you to keep this in mind: Abraham is counted as righteous for his believing loyalty to God, but he did not stop there; that belief bore fruit in acts of faith. That is the pattern Scripture actually gives us. And that is basically what God desires of us all. 

My usual hidden theme is "Jesus is sufficient." It should be obvious how that is found in this post.

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

Common Legalist Arguments - Part VI
The Law Is Written On Our Hearts - Part I
Are The Ten Commandments Removed?
The Sabbath Rest of John 14
Review - Written By The Finger of God
Are the Ten Commandments Removed?

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

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

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