Church of God International has a letter in its latest The International News written in by a person asking about the Sabbath.
Question: Can you prove to me by Scripture alone that our Saturday is the seventh day? I cannot find one verse that proves Saturday is the seventh day, only by other sources from men, like history books, modern rabbis claiming Saturday has never changed or been broken, but by Scripture alone I cannot link Saturday to the seventh day...
ANSWER: The biblical proof you’re asking for doesn’t exist. One cannot determine by the Bible alone that the day we call “Saturday” is the seventh day of the biblical week. But then, the Bible nowhere teaches that the Bible is the sole source of truth—so by what authority do you establish your “Scripture alone” rule? On what biblical grounds do you throw out examination of historical data as a legitimate means of arriving at important truths? The truth is, the extreme form of sola scriptura you have adopted is nowhere taught in the Scriptures.
Make no mistake, the Bible is God’s unique reve- lation to mankind and therefore must be given first place in our quest for truth, but Scripture nowhere teaches that it is the sole source of all true knowledge.
CGI admits it keeps the day because of traditions of men, not from actual scripture.
The Church of God movement (Armstrongism) has made a big point about now falling for "traditions of men" when it comes to following its god. And yet, for 8 decades it has done just that. Keeping traditions of men, especially Herbert Armstrong's interpretations as "gospel truth".
Because of the witness of the faith traditions of both Jews and Christians, the whole world today knows that the day we call Saturday is the seventh day of the week, and that it’s traceable all the way back to the time of Jesus.
Oh boy! Did you just stir up a hornet's nest! I'm grabbing a beer to watch this all unfold!
ReplyDeleteOh I bet you are 4:08.
DeleteBetter not tell that to my Seventh Day Baptist brethren!
ReplyDeleteOk now.
ReplyDeleteI CAN ANSWER THIS. Here goes.
Actually on second thought I might wait until we hear a proclamation from a cog ‘Prophet’ on this; to some, complex issue.
Now where’s Dr Bob Thiel?
Bob ….are you there?
I'm drinking beer now as I write this: the moon was made for fixed times - Ps 104:19 - which means a calendar was fixed from day one of Genesis One, and the calendar was shown to Israel - Ps 147:19 - and then given to the Jews - Rom 3:2 - and so look at the Jewish Calendar to verify a week. Oh man! I think I'll stay anonymous......
ReplyDeleteHerbert, Herman, and Co apparently never understood a calendar has been fixed from creation. Herman Hoeh refers to Graetz History of the Jews, Vol 2, pgs 443-444 to "verify" the sequence of jubilee years in the calendar was changed in history. Hoeh wanted to change the jubilee so that the 14th Passover would occur on Wednesday in 31 AD to accommodate the "three days and three nights" as from Wednesday through Saturday. But: the Graetz source does not show the jubilee year was changed. A maverick Jew wanted to change the sequence in jubilee years but the Sanhedrin didn't like the idea. And, by the fixed calendar the 14th was on Monday in 31 AD. The Graetz Volume 2 is online.
For those who despise the rules of postponement to determine Tishri 1: did you know the previous month Elul has the same number of days every year, no matter what the postponement rules do?
Gary, the comments about changing the jubilee year: I meant the leap year, not the jubilee year.
ReplyDeleteThis post is wrong, because the Bible says the law is NOT done away.
ReplyDeleteYears ago, when I studied into the lunar sabbaths, I became aware that some Jewish scholars freely admit that at some point in time, since the sabbaths had always been counted from the new moon, a seventh day was arbitrarily picked. When the mathematically calculated calendar replaced the one which had been written by the priests day by day from each new moon, the weeks became a repeating constant based on that chosen sabbath.
ReplyDeleteIt is nothing short of amazing that an Armstrong-based church would acknowledge this. HWA had always taught that the sabbath was preserved from creation week forward until our present time. And, there are grave problems, as we've seen, with the assumption that each "day" in creation week was a literal 24 hour period to begin with.
The floating Sabbath.
ReplyDeletefloating sabbath.
ReplyDeleteCome forward.
The Sunday teachers received their teaching 2000 years ago when heretics in the church decided to disassociate themselves from anything Jewish and to keep the 8th day in honour of the resurrection, which they thought was on a Sunday. Hence Saturday is the 7th day of the week. Thus we have support from both Jewish and Christian traditions that Saturday is the 7th day of the week.
ReplyDeleteIf there is ever a reason not to keep the Sabbath, this certainly isn't it.
ReplyDeleteEvery time there is a discussion about this, there is always someone who does not understand the basic term "fixed". Later in history, the term "fixed" referred to attempts to make calendar math come out correctly, so that it correlates with the celestial bodies which keep the time.. The calendar was fixed several times to accomplish this, and "leap year" is the best known example.
ReplyDeleteBack in the time of the Israelites, the observation method used to create the calendar. This was done on a day to day basis by the priests, in much the same manner as the new moon is still watched in association with the spring holy days. With the advent of the "fixed" calendar, the observatiin method was no longer required. The "fixed" calendar wasn't called fixed because somebody repaired it. It was called fixed because it could be accurately prepared in advance, using math and astronomy. It had the added benefit of being accurate even when the priests could not see the new moon. By this point in time, learned ones realized that the travels and relationships of the earth, the sun, and the moon were a constant. The values were fixed, repeated themselves, and were just as accurate as a fine Swiss watch. Mankind went from crude to refined. See also Hillel II.
Every time there is a discussion about this, there is always someone who does not understand the basic term "fixed". Later in history, the term "fixed" referred to attempts to make calendar math come out correctly, so that it correlates with the celestial bodies which keep the time.. The calendar was fixed several times to accomplish this, and "leap year" is the best known example.
ReplyDeleteBack in the time of the Israelites, the observation method used to create the calendar. This was done on a day to day basis by the priests, in much the same manner as the new moon is still watched in association with the spring holy days. With the advent of the "fixed" calendar, the observatiin method was no longer required. The "fixed" calendar wasn't called fixed because somebody repaired it. It was called fixed because it could be accurately prepared in advance, using math and astronomy. It had the added benefit of being accurate even when the priests could not see the new moon. By this point in time, learned ones realized that the travels and relationships of the earth, the sun, and the moon were a constant. The values were fixed, repeated themselves, and were just as accurate as a fine Swiss watch. Mankind went from crude to refined. See also Hillel II.
Christ kept the Sabbath on Saturday.. This is obvious by the Pharisees criticizing Him for healing on that day. With so many participants, the correct day could not have been lost since that time.
ReplyDeleteWell if that's true then CGI has gone to the dogs. Ron Dart when he was in CGI repeatedly preached how you can prove Saturday is the Sabbath.
ReplyDeleteShame on CGI and shame on this blog. You don't like been called athiests but you really are athiests, with a loose flimsy pretence of being Christians when it suits you. Big laugh? Big joke? Does it make you feel intellectually superiority? Psychology experts ? The stupid members will never suss you out. In the long run the joke will always be on you athiests.
4.36 AM
Delete"You don't like being called atheist's but you.."
Who exactly is "you"??
Reading this blog will show that there's a spread of beliefs on this blog. This blog exists because of the abuses in ACOG-land.
How converted, if at all, are the mini-me Herb ministers? Shouldn't you be shaming these Gestapo ministers who believe that they are entitled to trample on members rights.
Readers here are free to not read this blog or selected articles. By contrast, members trapped by family ties are forced to attend services and have their minds mis programed (obey, yield, surrender, submit) by their Fuhrer ministers.
Man! You guys really did a twist and pervert dance on this one! This is almost as bad as when you tried to connect the Sabbath to Saturn, saying the COG worships on Saturn's Day.
ReplyDeleteSaturday is not the Sabbath. The Sabbath is the seventh day of the week. It falls partly on Friday and partly on Saturday of the Roman calendar. The Jews have meticulously kept up with time because the Sabbath is so important to them. The weekly cycle has never been broken.
Good thinking anon 5:36. Twisting is what 'these guys' excellent in. They could cause a argument in an empty room. They lay traps for people and hope they fall into them.
DeleteI am not an atheist, I believe that there is an all-powerful God that created all things seen and unseen, that is eternal and lives outside time, a structure He created for man. He made man with a purpose. Man was constructed of matter that cannot be in the presence of God's Natural being, without being blasted to Smithereens. Therefore He left us a book. and a way by which we would know what He wants us to do. Jesus who is the word of God the One present at creation that said "let ther be light", was also the Word that spoke His law of liberty to the people from Mount Sinai. To people He had called out to preserve His truth, to the nations. Joh_5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. These people He fed for forty years in a wilderness, a place where there was no natural food. Their food He provided six days of the week, and a double portion on the sixth, so that they could not gather any on the seventh. The only day it would remain fresh if kept over a day.
ReplyDeleteTo these same people that He decided to send "The Word" who was made flesh. The same Word, now the Man named Jesus, that these people accused of not keeping the Sabbath. The same people who the Romans, whose calendar we go by, governed their land, at the time of Christ. The Romans that worshiped the sun god, on the first day of the week.
With this stupid post you are insinuating that The all-powerful Creator God is incapable of preserving His truth.
Why are there no questions or arguments about Sunday? Why is it so accepted by Christians, when the god that is worshiped on that day, is in the name given to that day by man. Why don't Christians say, "why are we worshiping the Creator on the day people worshiped the sun, when our God made the sun?" Why is there a constant search for loopholes in the bible to avoid obedience to God's word?
If anyone wants to keep another day, go ahead, but only one day in the week was made holy. God gives us all choices to make, but there are different consequences to choices."
Wow, telling people "It's Sabbath , take the day off, and rest", is like telling kid's it's bed time. Sad.
Of all things one could attack Armstrongites on, this is NOT it! There's not a religions organization on the planet who wouldn't give the same answer, which many do, about Sunday. If Sunday is the first day of the week then Saturday must be the seventh! It's ancient history, not an Armstrong invention.
ReplyDelete"Sola scriptura" is a founding principle of CGI's forerunner, the Church of God-7th Day.
ReplyDelete"My Bible and my Bible alone" is a favorite quote of theirs, from Gilbert Cranmer in the 1850s.
Yet COG-7 still keeps the Sabbath faithfully after all these years, and seems in no mood to hedge about it.
Didn't the early church meet on the first day of the week? Why do I not read any commandment to keep the Sabbath from the time of Pentecost, the birth of the church? Why did Paul say it wasn't important which day you observe? If the Law of Moses was only until the Messiah came (Gal. 3) then to continue to observe these laws is a denial that he came, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI think that the post's and subsequent commentary's focus on the Sabbath issue is misplaced. I think that the notion about Scripture which CGI advocated in their answer to the question is much more significant. They recognize the absolute TRUTH that Sola Scriptura is a flawed concept. The Bible itself refutes the premise that God is only revealed by/through Scripture.
ReplyDeleteIf Six-Pak is so keen on sinking millions into Archeology, he should open a project tracing the Sabbath back to its Mesopotamian origins.
ReplyDeleteBut, if the seventh-day Sabbath is sacrosanct (as it is in all of Armstrongism), in the Western Hemisphere, North and South America, the calendar day Saturday isn’t it. Biblically, in the Western Hemisphere the seventh day of each week, as would be determined from the original first week in the Holy Land, or in the Garden of Eden, would begin at sundown each Thursday, and end at sundown on each Friday.
ReplyDeleteHow so? Because biblically the International Dateline must be in the middle of the Atlantic, not the Pacific. For the Sabbath to be on the calendar’s Saturday in the Western Hemisphere, there must be some biblical evidence or reason the dateline is to be placed in the Pacific. There is no such scriptural placement. Quite the opposite; scripturally the dateline must be in the Atlantic.
The Sabbath day and its required observance proceeded across the globe as Adam’s descendants migrated east and west, and/or as those exiting Noah’s ark repopulated the globe. Either way, when Columbus “discovered” the New World, humans already lived here, descending from ancestors originating in the Old World. The Sabbath went with them and became legally established in the New World long before 1492. Columbus and those who settled here afterwards had no authority to so arbitrarily change the Sabbath. In Columbus’s time, and ever since, biblically the International Dateline has been in the Atlantic, modern maps without biblical standing.
Armstrongites, in the Western Hemisphere all these many years you’ve been observing the wrong day. Your Sabbaths and holy days have been off by at least a day. You have failed to observe a biblical International Dateline.
And, of course, all the while, since the establishment of the Sabbath, those so unfortunate to live above the Arctic Circle (the Inuits, Lapps, others) have been biblically condemned for failing to observe each Sabbath. Impossible to do when many days of the year have no sunrise or sunset.
OR, strict Sabbath observance was only a part of the Old Covenant, in one central region of the earth, for a distinct period; not at all in the New Covenant or across the globe. Simple geography confirms this latter view.
Here you go the never ending repeat of the infamous UCG white paper from 2011.
DeleteWhat a surprise NOT.
They are correct in the technical sense that the word SATURDAY is never found in scripture. Seventh Day is a different matter, and obviously, the Sabbath day actually starts on a FRIDAY, and represents a good percentage of the Sabbath. Also, a good portion of Saturday falls after sundown on Saturday nights.
ReplyDeleteSimple deductive reasonings shows that Jesus kept the same Sabbath as the Jews of his time, and by relying on secular history, we know that time has not been lost in knowing when this day was kept. Again, obviously, the Bible does not do the historical record from the time of Revelation forward, and we must rely on reason and history.
"Sola scriptura" is a founding principle of CGI's forerunner, the Church of God-7th Day."
ReplyDeleteCOG-7th Day is a Christian organization that practices what they preach and brings Christ to the world. CGI is not following COG-7th Day steps and is not part of their succession, but is just one more of the bastard stepchildren of Armstrongism. They owe their existence to Garner Ted Armstrong, one of the COG's biggest perverts. Some legacy there guys!
Wrong, 10:36, the Sabbath is on Saturday wherever you are on the planet. Just because it is Sabbath in the holy land on Saturday doesn't mean that you rest at the same time in the western hemisphere a day before. You wait until the earth makes its seventh turn to you.
ReplyDeleteAnd re 5:35 above, wrong, HWA did indeed write, in the Sabbath booklet, I believe, that the 7 day week was preserved from creation. God would not let anyone pull a fast one here on this doctrine because it would defeat His own purposes. From creation until now more and more truth has been revealed. Remember how patient the Lord was with WCG when it still kept Pentecost on the wrong day? (The truth eventually comes out whether one wants to keep it or not)
As for 9:14, yes indeed the early church met on the 1st day of the week in order to observe Pentecost but, when the Sunday worshippers entered the church, the heretics turned away from the "Jewish" Sabbath to Sunday because they falsely assumed that the resurrection was on a Sunday. This heresy was predicted by Daniel in Dan 7:25. As for your second question, there is a commandment to keep the Sabbath nd it is found in Heb 4:9 where it says, "there remains in conclusion (ara) a Sabbath-keeping (sabbatismos) for the people of God". The Sabbath was made for man -- not just for the Jew -- and Christ is Lord of that 7th day, meaning He tells us how to observe it. (Mk 2:27-28) A divine being does not call Himself Lord of something that He is trying to make defunct. As for your third question, your weak paraphrase of Paul's words in Rom 14 don't imply that it "doesn't matter which day you observe". What is at issue in Rom 14 are lesser observances connected to their past in which they held to certain superstitions before coming into the church, which they wanted to keep doing but "unto the Lord", pertaining to calendrical and dietary observances. As for Gal 3, yes, the law of Moses was until Christ because there was no other way of being saved, yet many of the upright, moral principles that we keep are found in that law. The law of God isn't entirely found in the law of Moses but much of it is.
I told you before, 9:14, that the true church upholds (histemi; Rom 3:31) the law just as Paul taught in Rom 3:31. Go figure what law I am talking about. It was for breaking the law that Satan was overthrown. Quit being deceived. Have you not read Mt 5:19? How well do you know the prophecies? (Is 66:23; Ezek 46:3)
Miller, regarding Sola Scriptura stated as follows:
ReplyDelete“We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine
revelation, which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that
is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian
behavior must be measured.” -The Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing
Evangelicals
I agree with you. The flaw in this model is that it does not know what to do with interpretation. Young Earth Creationism is just an interpretation. Yet some would assert it as the incontrovertible declaration of scripture and would find its binding force in Sola Scriptura. There is the Book of God's Words and the Book of God's Works and both must be accorded respect. I am surprised that the Armstrongist brother invoked this principle, too.
Anonymous 12:59:
A tedious refutation of all that you have written is in order but, alas, I don't think anyone would be interested. The literature explaining the status of the Sabbath in Christianity is already extensive. Armstrongism will go on flogging this dead horse ad infinitum. If you want to go on believing that seventh day observance is required for salvation then count your salvation a loss. You will never be able to keep it perfectly.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anonymous 10:36:00 said... “biblically the International Dateline must be in the middle of the Atlantic, not the Pacific…… scripturally the dateline must be in the Atlantic.”
ReplyDeleteIs that so Anon 10:36:00 – Fine that you say it is, but would you like to actually produce this scriptural evidence?
You might find it a little difficult to do so – but give it a go anyway!!
The Sabbath is a beautiful tradition - and you are free to keep it any way you'd like.
ReplyDeleteThe COGs never kept the Sabbath according to the Old Covenant instructions.
Yet, they have always pridefully boasted that the do keep the Sabbath - and their pseudo-Sabbath and their boasting continues today.
The prideful, Pharisaical COGs even make Sabbath-keeping a requirement for salvation.
This COG-odd condition to salvation breaks the first commandment by making the Sabbath more important than the Savior, and a power that exists outside of the Savior, who saves by grace, not law.
The prideful COGs are addressed in Galatians 5:4 - You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
The COGs have no idea what the Sabbath is under the New Covenant.
Because the COGs are estranged from Jesus and fallen from grace, the COGs have not entered the Sabbath Rest spoken of in Hebrews 4.
The tired, alienated COGs strive, with their private interpretations of what keeping the Sabbath means - with no rest from their works, not even on Saturday.
The Old Covenant and it's priesthood have disappeared.
Hebrews 7:12 demonstrates that change in the priesthood required a change in the law.
The superior New Covenant marches on, regardless of the COGs rebellious rejection of its High Priest his laws.
The weak, alienated COGs try to drag people back to the Old Covenant; but sadly for them, God can no longer be found in that covenant.
Fortunately, there is a steady stream of people stepping out of the darkness of the COGs, into the light of the Savior who gives rest to their souls (Matthew 11: 29) and provides them with a righteousness (Romans 5:1) that makes them at peace with God.
Hypocrisy at it worst.
DeleteJesus, from the moment of the nativity, until his death on the cross, did keep the Sabbath.
ReplyDeleteJesus kept the Sabbath perfectly - not like the watered-down COG-contorted Sabbath.
The fact that Jesus kept all of the Old Covenant Law perfectly made him eligible to be the perfect atonement for all of our sins.
Jesus fulfilled the law and became the terms of the New Covenant - forgiving our sins and giving us his righteousness.
Romans 10:4
Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
"Didn't the early church meet on the first day of the week? Why do I not read any commandment to keep the Sabbath from the time of Pentecost, the birth of the church? Why did Paul say it wasn't important which day you observe? If the Law of Moses was only until the Messiah came (Gal. 3) then to continue to observe these laws is a denial that he came, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteSunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:14:00 AM PDT"
Well, that's worth a retweet.
11.39 PM
DeleteBut aren't the "laws" in Gal 3 that need not be observed upon the Messiah's coming, the temple rituals that pointed to Christ's coming and sacrifice?
"Didn't the early church meet on the first day of the week?"
ReplyDeleteNo. Start reading the Acts of the Apostles, around chapter 13 and you'll see which day the early Church kept.
"Why do I not read any commandment to keep the Sabbath from the time of Pentecost, the birth of the church?"
Everyone was doing it, there was no need to remind them to do it.
"Why did Paul say it wasn't important which day you observe?"
He never said that.
"If the Law of Moses was only until the Messiah came (Gal. 3) then to continue to observe these laws is a denial that he came, isn't it?"
Go back and read Gal. 1 & 2, and THEN read Gal. 3. You should see that your premise is wrong, leading you to a wrong conclusion overall.
Trooisto:
ReplyDeleteWell said. I would like to comment on a particular point. You wrote:
"...God can no longer be found in that covenant."
Just so. A careful reading of Colossians 2:14-23 leads me to the conclusion that the Old Covenant with its particular ordinance-based slant now, after the New Covenant, falls into a different category. It is categorized as "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" and of the "rudiments of the world." This has been interpreted as a reference to worldly philosophies such as Asceticism, but the following scriptures indicates that it is actually referring to the Old Covenant:
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross"
Jesus did not come to save us from Stoicism or Asceticism but from sin under the Old Covenant. And this is what the verse above speaks of as do verses 16 and 17. The Old Covenant is not rendered utterly facetious by the New Covenant. Paul states a few verses later that it has a "shew of wisdom." It has become more of a cultural and ethical code and, as he states in verse 22, "the commandments and doctrines of men."
What this means regarding the sabbath is that if someone wants to keep it for pedagogical or cultural reasons or even as a liturgical form, that is fine. But as a "shadow" it was never elevated to a requirement for salvation under the NC. Under the NC, the meaning of the sabbath was transferred directly and in toto to Jesus leaving the sabbath a hollowed-out form. I know that Jews would strongly disagree, but this is part of the divide between Judaism and Christianity, between "Jews and Greeks."
Caveat Emptor to readers: Remember I am an amateur theologian, and this is my viewpoint. Sometimes needs to be said.
********* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anonymous 1:06, "Hypocrisy at it (sic) worst."
ReplyDeleteWell, uh, you might want to put something in your comment that gives it context. Maybe a reference to a particular foregoing comment. I see this happen over and over again. The responder thinks that his/her comment will appear in immediate juxtaposition with the original comment, and everyone will make the correct association. But there is no guarantee that it will have that position in the moderation queue. The result is a dangling comment that cannot be validly associated with anything - like the above comment.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
What day did the creator rest on? Could it be the seventh day from all his work? But we think we know more than the Eternal. If you have eyes you read plainly in the bible ot and nt that we keep the 7th day sabbath. If you come to any other conclusion, you are totally blind or refuse to even consider what the bible says because of teaching of worldly religions.
ReplyDeleteSo you now questioning the Sabbath wow.
ReplyDeleteIf God is omnipotent, then what does it mean that He "worked"? For an omnipotent Being, there is no such thing as "effort" nor is there any need for "rest" from "activity". Those are human constructs resulting from our finite and mortal nature. Mortal humans need to rest after activity. God merely CHOSE to do so. And it requires just as much effort for God to "rest" as to "create".
ReplyDeleteMany Sabbath-keeping advocates blur these distinctions and as a result make a mess out of what the Sabbath means.
10.50 AM
DeleteI think you are confusing God with the fictional character Q from the Star Trek Next Generation TV series.
Scientists believe that the universe is about 34 billion years old. That's the amount of time that God spent creating all the new creatures and vegetation since Satan's fall. So no, God didn't just snap his fingers and voila, the new design..
One of the questioners above asked why there is no evidence that the church kept the Sabbath after Pentecost?
ReplyDeleteWhat? You haven't read in the NT how many times the saints met together on the Sabbath day? That isn't good enough for you?
By the mouth of two or three witnesses a thing is established. Here are two:
1. Luke 23:56 clearly states that they "RESTED ON THE SABBATH DAY ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT", AFTER Jesus had been crucified. The Sabbath commandment was still upheld after His 3 1/2 ministry. They weren't doing it for "show".
2. Heb 4:9 states, after some intelligent reasoning in support of the Sabbath rest, that "there remains a Sabbath-keeping (sabbatismos) for the people of God". If you don't keep it you will be excluded from His rest, says the writer (Paul most likely). This has nothing to do with justification by works because obedience and good works are required to be saved by His grace. Who's going to be gracious to you if you sit around and say, "I'm immoral and can't do anything on my own to please you"? That's why the holy Spirit is available for empowerment.
3. As for all the other controversial verses in the NT that seem to negate the law and Sabbath, each needs to examined carefully from a contextual and translational point of view, since the Scriptures also got into the hands of those who were not of the faith (2 Thess 3:2), which is why the translations are getting worse as we get closer to the end.
To categorize the Old Covenant as "handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us" is wrong. It is the violation of that covenant that is against us. The Old Covenant is for us. It is for our own good. Duet 6:18. Romans 7:11-12 shows that the law is good -- it is the violation of these laws (sin) that kills us, is against us. Like the traffic laws. The speed limits are for our good. If you violate them, you get a ticket (handwriting) against you, and you have to pay the fine -- unless there is a generous benefactor who pays the fine for you. In that case, does this now mean you can simply disregard the law? Only if you're an idiot -- you continue to drive 150MPH, pretty soon you'll be dead. If you continue partake in adultery, pretty soon things will go badly for you. If you continue to violate the Sabbath . . .
ReplyDeleteFurther, the Greek word translated "ordinance" is better rendered, "decree" or "pronouncement", similar to a governor's decree or a judge's verdict pronounced against us when we have violated the law. It is this handwritten "decree" that has been nailed to the cross along with Jesus, who paid the price for us, so we don't have to pay the price. As to the law itself, it is upheld and confirmed many places in the New Testament.
anonymous 11:50
ReplyDeleteResponses to your numbered points:
1. These women were a part of the incipient church. I believe they kept the sabbath. I also believe that the Jerusalem church observed the sabbath. But they observed the sabbath in a liturgical/cultural sense. Armstrongism makes the sabbath a requirement for salvation. That is what you really need to prove - and you haven't. There is a world of difference between sabbath observance as a requirement for salvation and sabbath observance as a part of Jewish worship with no implications for salvation.
2. "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about another day. (v.8)"
But Joshua did, in fact, bring them into the promised land where they kept the seventh day. So, in the next verse when the writer of Hebrews states "So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God" he is talking about yet another sabbath rest beyond the one found in the Law of Moses that they Israelites kept under Joshua and that has been spuriously transferred to the NT by Armstrongists. For what that additional rest is you must go the the larger context of the NT but a hint is given in verse 11 when the writer states "Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs." Here he counterposes "rest" against "disobedience." He is talking about resting from sin in Christ not resting on the seventh day.
3. As for all the other controversial verses in the NT that seem to support the law and Sabbath, each needs to examined carefully from a contextual and translational point of view. And this has already been done extensively and the idea of keeping the chronological sabbath has the same status as advocating circumcision. And translations and commentaries are getting better but they do undermine what you call "faith" - the belief in Armstrongism.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
" the translations are getting worse as we get closer to the end."
ReplyDelete++++++++++++++
Yes. As in the NIV in Lev 23:6: there's no Hebrew word for the word "begins". The seven days begin on the 14th and on the 15th is the NTBMO.
Yes. As in the NIV in Luke 23:54 (this mistranslation is a real doozy!): the sabbath was not beginning; it was beginning to grow light. What?! What on earth did Luke mean? He meant that the 14th, an annual sabbath, was growing light because darkness was leaving the land (this is rank heresy to Armstwrongists).
So no, God didn't just snap his fingers and voila, the new design..
ReplyDeleteIf God chooses to work within time, then some works will take the natural time they require.
If God chooses to work from beyond time, He can do as He wills.
Scripture gives us evidence of both approaches being used in different contexts.
Neither approach involves God doing "work" in the sense a finite mortal being does "work." That's true whether his "workdays" are 24 Earth-hours long, or whether each creation "workday" was eons long.
LCG Expositor 1:33
ReplyDeleteSome points:
1. You wrote, "To categorize the Old Covenant as "handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us" is wrong. It is the violation of that covenant that is against us."
The OC is not for you if you do not have the faith to keep it (q.v.). Maybe as an ideal it is for you if you could be perfect, but pragmatically it is against you. Paul said, "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Doesn't sound like a happy outcome for Paul.
2. To make the analogy that "the handwriting of ordinances" is to the OC as a traffic ticket is to traffic laws doesn't have traction. Did Moses issue tickets for violations of the OC? I think the language is clear that what you have cited is just an artful dodge.
3. The δόγμα used for ordinances or decrees is the word "dogma" - still in common use today. This refers to the vetted statements of a belief system. The idea that the possible translation "decree" vacates its use as a reference to the OC doesn't work. Whether dogma or ordinances, this verse (14) is logically connected to verses 16 and 17 by the term οὖν or oun translated "therefore" and also by simple flow of language. And verses 16 and 17 contain references to features in the OC. It also speaks of these features foreshadowing Christ. I do not think that Stoicism, or Epicureanism or Asceticism, or even a "traffic ticket", as you analogize, foreshadow Christ.
The deal is the OC has been superseded. And you should be happy about that because the Israelites couldn't keep The Law of Moses and neither can you. Armstrongism gives you no shot at salvation. Rod Meredith wrote "Then God will give you the Holy Spirit, through which you will receive the love to keep His law." So, if you have been given the Holy Spirit by now you are fulfilling the Law of Moses perfectly and consisently. Lots of luck.
********* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Other than be called a hypocrite (with no context cited), I do not believe I have ever gotten a COGlodyte to respond to my use of Galatians 5:4
ReplyDelete"You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."
I am eager to hear how their group-think deals with this verse because, as evidenced by the Sabbath defenders in this thread, they do seek justification from the law and have no interest in grace or justification by the righteousness of Jesus.
It fascinates me that I can never get Armstrongites I know, or strangers on a blog, to be interested in the New Covenant concepts of grace and justification.
The poor COGlodytes worship the creation (law) while rejecting the Creator.
Although they recognize the title of "Lord of the Sabbath" belonging to Jesus, they do not care to know Jesus as the Sabbath Rest depicted in Hebrews 4, and reject the rest and salvation he offers.
Jesus fulfilling the Sabbath, becoming our Sabbath Rest, is a topic they could research but their alienation from Jesus makes it something that holds no value or interest for them.
Armstrongism never kept the sabbath according to Old Covenant standards.
ReplyDeleteOutside of the fact that the Old Covenant has vanished, everyone who lights a fire on the sabbath would be in violation of breaking the sabbath by Old Covenant requirements.
Broadly speaking - or the spirit of the law - that prohibition of lighting a fire includes starting a car, flipping an electric switch, and cooking food.
Exodus 35:3
Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.
Erratum (6:57)
ReplyDeleteI made a statement in the last paragraph of my comment that derides the idea that a human can keep the Law. And if keeping the Law perfectly is a requirement for salvation, as an Armstrongist dogma, then salvation is lost. I may not be right about what Armstrongism asserts on this topic. In the material I have reviewed, I can't say that this issue is clearly presented. It is the "perfectly" part that is in question.
Though Classical Armstrongism states that the Law should be written on the heart of believers and should be kept through empowerment by the Holy Spirit, Rod Meredith also wrote in his article "Is Obedience to God Required for Salvation":
"Since we by nature violate the ten commandments, we certainly need pardon — GRACE — and the supernatural power of the Spirit of God in us to fulfill them."
Meredith does not go into the operation of grace so I am not sure what he means. And there is barely a mention of grace in MOA - its just a blip. GTA wrote an article about law and grace but it seems like he is saying that it is all a part of a point-in-time transaction between the repentant and God. I have visited the Armstrongist topics of grace, repentance and law keeping a number of times and it has never really been clear how all of these operate together not as a point-in-time transaction on initial conversion but as a part of the ongoing process of what Christians call sanctification. So I am not willing to say that I am categorically correct about my assertion until I have done more research, if I ever do.
********** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Here are a few excerpts from “What Do You Mean . . . Salvation?” by Herbert W. Armstrong (1973):
ReplyDeleteIt is plain and simple. Here it is: "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23)...
Further, let's get this point straight and plain right here—eternal life is not something you can earn, it is God's gift through Christ! That is the plain teaching of your Bible! You earn wages. The only wages you can earn is death. Your Bible says that...
Again—your Bible says very plainly that "the gift of God is eternal life." Now this very verse (and all others in the Bible bearing on the subject agree) says plainly that what you receive by God's grace—as His gift, is eternal life. It says that eternal life is something you have to obtain as a gift from GOD!...
According to the Bible, what the "saved" receive as God's gift through Jesus Christ is eternal life...
Now notice Romans 3:20. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."
Of course! False accusers to the contrary notwithstanding, that is precisely what we teach. Keeping the Law will not justify anyone. We have all sinned. We cannot justify this guilt we have incurred—we cannot avoid the wages we have earned—death—by obedience, goodness, works, or anything we can do...
LAW-KEEPING Won't Justify!...
Now, continue in Romans 5:8-10: "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood...."
NOTICE! "Being now justified." How? By your works—by your required obedience to God's Law? No! By the blood of CHRIST! If you have repented, and accepted Jesus Christ as personal Saviour you are already now justified!...
Notice it! You are already justified. Not by works, but by Christ's blood!
You deserved only death. You didn't earn forgiveness—pardon from the death penalty. You received it by grace through Jesus Christ...
Yet you cannot, of your own strength, keep the spiritual Law spiritually.
Many religious people ... will tell you, "It is impossible to keep the Law." Are they telling the truth? What does your Bible say?
Notice! Of the parents of John the Baptist, you will read: "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless" (Luke 1:6).
Why, if it is impossible, did Christ command that if we would enter into life, "keep the commandments"? (Matthew 19:17.)...
Hello Anonymous of March 16, 2022 at 12:00:00 AM:
ReplyDeleteYes, there are examples that people dust off to show HWA and RCM acknowledged salvation by grace - not law keeping.
However, the entire belief system preached by the COGs is that no salvation will occur, unless you are keeping the law.
For example, according to COG beliefs, please tell me if someone who has faith in Savior Jesus but does not know about Sabbath-keeping can receive the gift of salvation?
Hello Anonymous of March 16, 2022 at 12:00:00 AM:
ReplyDeletePosed the typical COG-odd argument about Matthew 19.
COGlodytes don't read/understand that passage well.
COGlodytes like the part where Jesus said you must keep the commandments.
So that preach that as a requirement, but COGlodytes don't like the part about giving all they have to the poor, so they ignore that part.
COGlodytes do not get the fact that Jesus was living perfectly under the existing Old Covenant so he could not enact a change in the law.
However, Jesus did foreshadow grace In Matthew 19:26 by stating “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
The COGs don't keep the law under the Old Covenant and the COGs do not understand the commands of Jesus under the New Covenant.
3.31 AM
ReplyDeleteIn decades of bible study, I somehow missed the part of "giving all they have to the poor."
Kindly supply the chapter/verse so that I can be enlightened on the matter.
We all know that salvation is a gift. The question is, however, IS THERE A STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR THAT THE CHRISTIAN SHOULD LIVE BY? If so, what is that standard? I submit it is the law of God, beginning with the Ten Commandments. It's not about salvation, it is about success, prosperity, and happiness in this life. Given to us by a loving creator who wants us to succeed and prosper. Of course we can't earn our salvation. If you think you can go around stealing, lying, committing adultery, violating the Sabbath, and then expect Jesus to save you, fine, knock yourself out.
ReplyDeleteHello Anonymous of Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 9:37:00 AM:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"In decades of bible study, I somehow missed the part of "giving all they have to the poor."
Kindly supply the chapter/verse so that I can be enlightened on the matter."
Well of course you missed this passage in the decades of studying with your blind COG guides!
As I stated in my comment at 3:31, COGs habitually use Matthew 19 in their COG-odd argument that Salvation depends on keeping the commandments.
I also stated that COGlodytes don't read/understand that passage well.
The verse you asked for is within Matthew 19, the very chapter I was discussing after another Anonymous of March 16, 2022 at 12:00:00 AM (maybe you) mentioned Matthew 19 as support for salvation being dependent on commandment keeping.
The verse you've been unaware of, after decades of studying with the COGs, is:
Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor.
The context of this passage, which the COGs are oblivious to, is a rich man asks Jesus what he must do to receive eternal life.
Jesus mentions the commandments - because Jesus could not advocate for anything else as he was living perfectly under the Old Covenant, before becoming the Atonement for this man's sins.
The rich man replied that he had been keeping this law his entire life and asked what else he lacked.
Jesus responded that he should sell all that he had, give it to the poor, and follow him (Jesus).
Later, the disciples were surprised that it was so difficult to earn eternal life.
In verse 26, Jesus told them it was not just difficult - it was impossible for a man to do.
However, since salvation is an act of God, only with God is salvation possible - even if you keep the entire law and give away all your possessions.
Sadly, the COG group-think has required you, for decades, to turn off your critical thinking skills as soon as you read that Jesus told the rich man to keep the commandments.
You resist the Word when you give yourself over to this group-think.
Many of the same passages COGs think prove they're right on issues, contain within the same passages, proof that they are very wrong.
If you want to obey God, and honor him with your studying the Bible, you need to study beyond the teachings of the COGs.
It does appear you love God and want to do what is good and right - please consider starting your COG-free study with the terms that COGs neglect, such as justification, redemption, sanctification, and glorification.
3.49 PM
DeleteTroolsto, thank you for enlightening me. I always thought that in Matthew 19.21, Christ was exclusively addressing the young rich man, since he would have probably lost his wealth had he followed Christ anyway. I had no idea Christ was talking to everyone. I trust you have obeyed Christ's instruction and given away all your wealth. God bless you Troolsto. Err, how are you paying for this internet connection and device?
Hello LCG Expositor: I don't know of any Christian group that does not agree with you about the Ten Commandments being a standard to live by.
ReplyDeleteThese Christians (not the COGs) have been fighting to keep the Ten Commandments in courts, schools, and other public places.
However, there are three problems with the COGs insistence on the law.
The first embarrassing problem is that the COGs are terrible law keepers - they ignore most of the law.
The COGs cannot even keep their beloved Sabbath according to biblical instruction.
The second problem for the COGs (not the rest of Christianity) is that the New Covenant requires so much more than the Ten Commandments.
COGs seem to have some understanding that Jesus fulfilled the Ten Commandments - yet, the COGs insist on the keeping of the letter of these laws, instead of pursuing the magnified meaning that Jesus gave to them.
While the COGs are both trumpeting and trampling their Old Covenant Sabbath, they refuse to enter the New Covenant Sabbath Rest.
The third problem is that even though you can admit that salvation is a gift - and others can dust off some unused writing of HWA that says salvation is by grace - the COGs put much more effort into teaching that the law is required for salvation.
Your own last sentence above exposes your belief in salvation being dependent on keeping the law.
You wrote:
"If you think you can go around stealing, lying, committing adultery, violating the Sabbath, and then expect Jesus to save you, fine, knock yourself out."
You've put conditions on that gift you started your post with.
Is it a gift, if you have to do something to get the gift?
In truth, the sins you mentioned will make a very miserable life on earth,
In truth, liars, adulterers, or every other sinner (which we all are) will not enter the Kingdom.
Only the righteous (that's righteous as in one hundred percent righteous) will be allowed to enter the Kingdom.
Hallelujah, Jesus gives us his righteousness so that we can be the perfect righteousness that Holy God requires of those who are to be in his presence.
Romans 5:17
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
5:43, the Lord did not suggest in Mt 19:21 that we sell EVERYTHING we have but he did state the importance of keeping the commandments. The translation that you're using is leading you astray.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't be foolish, people, for you who think you are saved by grace must uphold the law (Rom 3:31; 1 Jn 3:4) while you who think you are justified by law-keeping must wait for grace. (1 Pet 1:13)
And why do you who want to ditch the law keep asking all the time if keeping the law is "required for salvation"? By asking that very question you reflect a lack of faith and grace that you think you have. Then what are you obedient to if you think you are saved?
Hello Anonymous March 19, 2022 at 5:43:00 AM:
ReplyDeletePraise Jesus; I'm glad you feel enlightened!
May you forever grow in grace and knowledge and knowledge of grace!
A few thoughts: None of Jesus' words in the Bible were spoken to one person exclusively - that would be a waste of perfect wisdom.
Jesus' response was totally tailored to the specific needs of the rich man; yet, those same words hold rich meaning for all of us.
Whether you're rich or poor, Jesus can handle all of our needs at the same time; he's thrifty that way (he's all about saving)!
We know the words about selling all you have hold meaning for all of humanity because there is no provision to the salvation equation in which a certain amount of wealth triggers specific, exclusive requirements.
Despite the teachings of the COGs, the salvation equation is Jesus plus nothing - that's the meaning of Savior - Jesus does it all.
If any responsibility is given to humans for salvation, you are stealing glory from the Savior.
The entire interaction with the rich man in Matthew 19 is an allegory showing that keeping the commandments isn't enough to earn salvation, nor is adding to commandment keeping the giving of all your possessions.
The culmination of the allegory is that salvation is not possible for man - but, salvation is only possible with God.
Because I have put all my trust in Jesus for salvation, I understand that Jesus was not requiring both the keeping of Old Covenant commandments or giving away all you possess.
Because I have put all my trust in Jesus for salvation, I do pay way too much for internet.
However, it has been a rich blessing to both know what it's like to give sacrificially and to have experienced being in dire need of the generosity of others.
The hypocrisy and oddity of the COGs is that in Matthew 19, they insist that the keeping of the commandments is a literal command for all but the giving of all your possessions is not a literal command for all.
That same COG-odd confusion can also be seen in how the COGs treat the Sabbath.
The COGs insist that the Old Covenant Sabbath is required, based on Exodus 35:2.
Yet, the COGs completely ignore Exodus 35:3
"Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.”
To compound their confusion, the COGs do not care to know anything about what Jesus has done to magnify the Sabbath in the New Covenant.
If you are to desire to forever grow in grace and knowledge and knowledge of grace, you must delve beyond what the confused COGs teach.
So 8:09, in your attempt to correct the COG's, are you taking away the literal meaning of the Lord's words in Mt 19:17&21 by saying that there's no need to keep the commandments or sell one's possessions to be saved or perfected, even though that is what He said?
ReplyDeleteIt's just an allegory? If that's the case, one is free to believe whatever he wishes, which leads him on the broad road (of morals) to destruction.
Jude warned us about you who turn the grace of God into lasciviousness (a license to do whatever you please). (Jude 4)
Quit deceiving the people over your hatred for the church's past teachings. Even if you were hurt by them, you are under the obligation of grace to forgive and to turn to righteousness just as they are.
3:42, you reference 1 Jn 3:4, three verse later is of interest.
ReplyDelete1Jn 3:7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who DOES what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. (NIV).
Jas 2:16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but DOES NOTHING about his physical needs, what good is it?
Jas 2:17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
Jas 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I DO.
Jas 2:21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he DID when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
Jas 2:25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she DID when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
"In Jas. 2:21-23 James evokes Abraham as an illustration of justification by works. Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac on the altar. NIV's "considered righteous" is an improvement over RSV's "justified by works." If James is making a case for the position that a sinner can be made right with God by works or performance, then he is in clear contradiction with Pauline thought, which declares that this is impossible. James, however, is not using "works" in the sense of works that count for one's salvation; rather, by "works" James means acts of charity and mercy, as in the preceding verses (vv.1-17) makes abundantly clear. James is speaking ethically rather than forensically, morally rather than judicially. Abraham's faith in God was more than cerebral. It formed his life and his life-style (note the pl. "works," not the sing.), culminating in the offering of Isaac. For James these choices made throughout his life are a fulfillment of Gen 15:6 (Jas 2:23).
Ge 15:6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
"James use of this verse differs from that of Paul (see Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6). For James Gen 15:6 is a double commentary on the life of Abraham. First he had faith in God ("Abraham believed God"); second, God declared Abraham righteous whenever Abraham gave expression to his faith. It is such an expression - works not as a merit for salvation but as a mark of salvation - that James is urging on his audience. James illustrates the same principle with Rahab. Here are two vastly different people - a Hebrew patriarch and a Canaanite prostitute - both showing a faith that works. Thus Abraham is not unique" (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-50, NICOT, p.121)
Mt 5:20 For I say unto you, That except YOUR righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
"Man is expected to respond to God's grace. But how? This is the role of the law. The law explains how men are to imitate God. The NT insists that the law is not a means to salvation, but a response to salvation. The disciple is not merely to observe the letter of the commandments. HIS righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. He must be perfect as his heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:17-48)" (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.34).
"Paul argued that keeping the law is the fruit of justification rather than the means of justification... The law was given to the covenant people after their redemption from Egypt..., not as a moral hurdle they had to clear if they wished to be saved" (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.261).
Hello Unknown: no need to worry, I'm not against morality and do not promote lasciviousness.
ReplyDeleteI am one hundred percent for all that is required under the New Covenant.
That is good - because the Old Covenant and all it's law is gone forever.
Actually, there is much more morality in the New Covenant than can be found in the Old Covenant.
Even the COGs acknowledge, to some extent, that Jesus magnified the Ten Commandments.
For example, the COGs seem to be aware that although the Old Covenant forbade the act of adultery, the New Covenant forbids sexually impure thoughts.
Furthermore, what is required for salvation is 100 percent righteousness.
However, only Jesus could be that righteous.
Fortunately, Jesus gives us his righteousness - and that is how we are saved and that is how he is the Savior.
I believe I've cited above the verses to back up these statements, if you care to look them up.
Yes, Matthew 19 is an allegory, which by definition is a story with a moral meaning.
The COGs cannot put all Holy Scripture together to understand the New Covenant - which is very different from the Old Covenant.
Instead, the COGs proof text to come up with their own interpretations.
Jesus told the allegory of Matthew 19 while living perfectly under the Old Covenant - therefore, he could not change the law at that point.
Hebrews 7:12 confirms the law has changed.
The COGs insist that the Old Covenant law is still enforce - yet they only select the parts of the law that they want to keep - and contrary to the law, they re-define how their law favorites should be kept.
An example I've cited above is from Exodus 35:2-3 - in light of this verse, the COGs have redefined the Sabbath to their own liking.
Do you agree?
I have never gotten a COGlodyte to address Exodus 35:2-3 or Galatians 5:4.
Unknown, would you be the first to address those passages?
6:07 writes:
ReplyDelete“Hebrews 7:12 confirms the law has changed.”
No it doesn’t. One has to distinguish between where one is arguing hypothetically and where one is stating fact.
Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
The author of Hebrews was arguing hypothetically in 7:12 and stating fact in 8:4.
Heb 8:1 ... We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
The heavenly priesthood doesn’t require a person to be of the tribe of Levi - so hypothetically the law has changed; but the law concerning the Levitical priesthood on earth has not changed.
Jer 33:14 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Jer 33:18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
Jer 33:20 Thus saith the LORD; if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
Jer 33:21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
Jer 33:14-26 is a prophecy for the Messianic Age, when the Levitical priests will once again offer sacrifices, this time in Ezekiel’s Temple.
The covenant with Levi can only be broken when the covenant with day and night is broken.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: quoted from Jeremiah 31:31.
Jer 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night...
Jer 31:36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
The pledges of God in Jer 31:31-36 & 33:14-26 concerning the renewed covenant with Israel, which includes the Levitical priesthood, are backed up by the covenant with night and day.
"The law is unalterable, but that does not justify its application beyond the purpose for which it was intended. To speak of a change in application of the law is not to regard it as now discarded" (R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, p.186).
This is seen in what is called the Ezekielian Torah; see Ezekiel 44:15-31 for the legislation for the Levitical priests in the Millennium.
"Ezekiel's program is a revision - and up-dating and a rectification - of selected topics of existent priestly legislation and practice very similar to, if not identical with, that of the Pentateuch..." (Moshe Greenberg, "The Design and Themes of Ezekiel's Program of Restoration," p.235).
Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
“God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God” (Neh 10:29).
“I am not free from God’s law
but am under Christ’s law” (1 Cor 9:21 - a synonymous parallellism).
The law of the prophet Christ is the law of God, given by the prophet Moses fully developed:
Christ’s purpose was “not to change the law, still less annul it, but ‘to reveal the full depth of meaning that it was intended to hold' [A.H. McNeil, The Gospel according to St Matthew, p.58]...” (John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, BST, pp.72).
(Perhaps descendants of one of Christ’s half-brothers will fulfil the Davidic pledge of a man sitting on the throne of David during the Millennium).
Trooisto, Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 8:09:00 PM PDT, said:
ReplyDelete"...Despite the teachings of the COGs, the salvation equation is Jesus plus nothing - that's the meaning of Savior - Jesus does it all.
If any responsibility is given to humans for salvation, you are stealing glory from the Savior..."
******
Where is God the Father in all of that? Is God the Father some kind of a "schmoe?" When you say "Jesus does it all," isn't that idolatry: putting something or someone in place of God: God the Father?
Christ admitted of Himself that He "could do nothing." Do you believe Jesus?
John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
If anyone "does it all," then it must be God the Father, who receives all of the glory, praise and honor. Jesus always gave His Father credit for things said and done in His life.
Did Jesus lie to us?
Jesus does not do it all. If there were no Husbandman (John 15), there would never have been the "True Vine!"
The God of the Old Testament (not Jesus or the Word) is working out His entire Plan of Salvation (Psalm 74:12) to save all mankind and subsequently destroy Satan and his angels (Matthew 25:41, 46), and how will He do it?
That God worked out things through that Word (which, like Jesus, had a beginning: something God the Father does not have! That Word, like Jesus, had an end: something God the Father does not have!).
How is that God, The God, The Father working things out relative to Jesus, who does not "do it all?"
"But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him." I Cor 8:6
Again, Jesus does "not do it all!" Need another scripture, or two?
1 Cor 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
1 Cor 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
If we are to believe that someone "does it all," shouldn't that Being be God the Father: Jesus' God and Jesus' Father?
Time will tell...
John
Hello John: I don't think you will like my response because it appears you do not believe Jesus is God.
ReplyDeleteI believe in one God.
As Jesus said in Mark 12:29:
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
I believe Jesus is the Savior.
2 Timothy 1:10
It has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
Savior means one who saves, and that title belongs to Jesus.
I don't believe that referring to Jesus as Savior takes anything away from the Gory of God the Father.
I believe, as you have also pointed out, that God is also referred to as the Savior:
Psalm 89:26
‘You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.’
Since the title Savior is given to Jesus and God, I believe Jesus is God (which is also supported by many other scriptural references).
I believe there is one God and that God the Father and Jesus are one:
John 17:22
I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one
Within my belief in one God, is my belief that God the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirt is God.
Furthermore, I believe the Father is not Jesus and is not the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is not the Father and is not the Holy Spirit.
And, the Holy Spirit is not Jesus an is not the Father.
Truly, the nature of God is impossible for humans to explain or understand.
Yes, I am a Trinitarian - there is one God, who is represented as the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
I assume that you search the Holy Scriptures and come to another conclusion.
I offer as proof of one God within the concept of the Trinity, the fact that you can search several scriptures and find the title of Savior being given to God and to Jesus.
John, I have prayed for you the same prayer I pray for myself - to see God more clearly.
Trooisto, Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 6:13:00 PM PDT, said:
ReplyDelete"...Hello John: I don't think you will like my response because it appears you do not believe Jesus is God..."
******
It does not matter whether I like your response or not. Say what/why you believe and stick with it unless/until you prove it otherwise...and vice versa it applies to me, too.
To clarify some thoughts, as it turns out, although it did not appear to you, Jesus, currently a spirit being, high priest, etc., is God; however, He is not "The God:" the Father, who has no beginning and no end, who only has immortality and gave it to His Son: Jesus Christ!
You also wrote: "...Within my belief in one God, is my belief that God the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirt is God..."
...Yes, I am a Trinitarian - there is one God, who is represented as the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
I assume that you search the Holy Scriptures and come to another conclusion..."
******
Once upon a time, I used to be a Trinitarian, also. Over time, I rejected that 3 in 1 thingy and began to believe in two being God, some kind of "2 in 1" thingy. Approximately 24 years ago, my mind could not accept the 2 thingy with no beginning and no end, and have since believed in only one God: The God, aka the Father, who at some point, a beginning, created the Word (the first person or thing in a series), which The God worked through: teaching, educating, etc., eventually using the Word in a continuing creation of things to work out a Plan of Salvation. Then, in another beginning, the God used something of that Word to unite with an egg in Mary, so that Word was made flesh: 100% flesh. Not 100% God, 100% man! Not 50:50! Flesh (I John 4:2-3; 2 John 1:7), just like us! The God is a miracle worker, who as Jesus grew was continuing to be taught, educated by The God.
I will close by cut & paste of some information, FWIIW, provided by another, to explain the difference between God and The God.
To be continued…
John
Continuing…
ReplyDelete^^^^^^
Understanding John 1:1
In the KJV this verse reads:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1 AV)
The Greek text for John 1:1 reads as follows:
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos (John 1:1)
Let's break it down into the three phrases and translate them literally:
- en arche en ho logos = in beginning was the Word;
- kai ho logos en pros ton theon = and the Word was WITH the God;
- kai theos en ho logos = and God was the Word.
Notice that the word "God" is used once WITH THE DEFINITE ARTICLE and the next time WITHOUT THE DEFINITE ARTICLE. Notice also that in the English translations the last phrase is usually reversed, i.e. it is rendered as "and the Word was God" instead of "and God was the Word". Since both the nouns in that phrase (i.e. theos and logos) are in the nominative case linked by the verb "to be", both could be considered the subject.
This verse was easy to understand until the Worldwide Church of God changed its teachings about the nature of God, and claimed that this verse actually doesn't really mean what it seems to say; that it really means something else. Therefore, if my discussion of this verse now seems a bit on the technical side, it is not because we need a thorough knowledge of Greek in order to grasp what God is telling us here. The meaning is plain and easy to understand; it means EXACTLY what it says! The technicalities are only needed in order to dispel the confusion that has been created about this verse.
Notice also that the Greek text clearly says in the second phrase: "and the Word was WITH THE God", rather than just "and the Word was WITH God". The Greek text here includes the definite article!
IT IS THE THEOLOGICAL BIAS OF THE TRANSLATORS that has resulted in the omission of the definite article in the English translations. Translators and experts in the Greek language will insist that in English the definite article should be omitted in this particular case (not in other situations) because it contradicts their preconceived ideas about God! We need to understand this!
John specifically included the definite article for "theos" in phrase two, but chose to omit it in phrase three.
Consider this: in the New Testament the word "theos" is used in the nominative case exactly 316 times; but in only 265 of these occurrences is it used with the definite article. In 51 places the nominative case of "theos" is used without a definite article. So what does this show? It shows the writers of the N.T. at times deliberately used or omitted the definite article when referring to God.
Therefore when John wrote "pros ton theon" he didn't just mean "with God"; he meant "with THE God". The use of the definite article in this case has got nothing to do with "grammatical requirements". John deliberately used the definite article in this phrase, even as he deliberately left the definite article out in the next phrase.
Don't let the religious bias of translators and scholars obscure the facts. Look at what John actually wrote for yourself.
^^^^^^
Is there a difference between God and The God?
Time will tell...
John
Sorry John, I disagree.
ReplyDeleteHowever, can we both agree that:
Jesus is the Savior?
Salvation is an act of God?
Salvation is a gift that humans cannot earn?
Trooisto, Friday, March 25, 2022 at 3:34:00 AM PDT, made the following comment, asking several questions, and I will respond using double [[brackets]]:
ReplyDelete******
Sorry John, I disagree.
However, can we both agree that:
Jesus is the Savior?
[[Jesus is a savior, and so is The God, the Father, and if that weren't enough I would also cite the following:
Obadiah 21 "And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD’S."
Psalms 22:28 "For the kingdom [is] the LORD’S: and he [is] the governor among the nations."]]
Salvation is an act of God?
[[Yes, and all of His acts/works are known: Acts 15:18; Hebrews 4:3 and it is by God’s Power, through His Son. I Cor 8:6]]
Salvation is a gift that humans cannot earn?
[[Yes, absolutely, and we do agree on some things, but can we also agree to disagree?
Time will tell...
John]]