The Sabbath: Cultic or Universal?
According to Pastor Vance Stinson of the Church of God International, the Ten Commandments are a "universal" feature of God's Law - meaning that they apply to everyone. Of course, as part of the Decalogue, that would also include the commandment to "remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy." Is that, however, consistent with what Scripture has to say about the Sabbath? OR Does the Bible reveal that the Sabbath was a "cultic" feature of God's Law - meaning that it applied to a relatively small group of people as a religious practice which set them apart from the religious practices of other peoples?
First, although the book of Genesis informs us that the Sabbath was created at the end of God's six days of work after "he" had finished creating (or recreating, as some would say) the earth and universe. Even so, we do not see the Sabbath mentioned again until God introduced it to the children of Israel after "he" had rescued them from Egyptian slavery.
In the sixteenth chapter of the book of Exodus, we read that "the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness" because they were hungry (Exodus 16:1-3). As a consequence, we read that God told Moses: "Behold, I am about to rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law or not. On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather daily." (Exodus 16:4-5, ESV) A little later, in the same chapter, we read: "On the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers each. And when all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses, he said to them, 'This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the Lord; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay aside to be kept till the morning.' So they laid it aside till the morning, as Moses commanded them, and it did not stink, and there were no worms in it. Moses said, 'Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none.'" (Exodus 16:22-26, ESV) In this way, God introduced the children of Israel to the Sabbath.
Later, at Mount Sinai, we are informed that God included the observance of this Sabbath in the Ten Commandments which "he" gave to Moses (Exodus 20:8-11). Of course, in so doing, the Sabbath became an integral part of God's covenant with the Children of Israel. Indeed, this was made clear at the conclusion of that account of God's dictation to Moses of the terms of the covenant. We read there: "And the Lord said to Moses, 'You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you. You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'" (Exodus 31:12-17, ESV)
Thus, we can see that the Sabbath was a special feature of God's covenant with the children of Israel. Certainly, the Gentile nations of the world had no such tradition or practice. Hence, if Mr. Stinson is correct in differentiating between "cultic" and "universal" commandments, then we would have to say that the Sabbath commandment is "cultic"!
109 comments:
Abraham didn't observe the sabbath? Gen 26:5.
Vance Stinson of CGI replied to this post:
There are claims in some cultures--in Ethiopia, for example--that the seventh-day Sabbath was observed centuries before Moses. Of course, there is no way to prove whether there is any validity to such traditions. But if indeed the Sabbath was a creation institution and was originally established for the benefit of humankind--which is what I believe--then it did not function as a sign of the Old Covenant until the Old Covenant was inaugurated. Once the Old Covenant was abolished, the Sabbath AS IT FUNCTIONED IN THE OLD COVENANT (i.e., as a sign of the Covenant) was also abolished. That does not mean it has no function under the New Covenant.
As far as "universal" (moral) versus "cultic" (ceremonial) features are concerned, the view of Catholics and Lutherans (among others) is that the universal feature of the Fourth (Third to Catholics and Lutherans) Commandment is the obligation to set aside time for rest and worship, and the ceremonial feature of the Sabbath is the specific day (the seventh day). It is the ceremonial feature that has changed. Christians, then, do not observe the seventh-day Sabbath, but they do meet Sabbath obligations by resting and worshiping on the Lord's Day (Sunday). That's their view.
Here's the heart of the matter: As some Reformed scholars have pointed out, IF the Ten Commandments are carried forward as a unit of divine law into the New Covenant, and IF the Sabbath was instituted on the seventh day at creation week, then the most consistent course of action for the Christian is to observe the seventh-day Sabbath. This observation was made in light of the fact that Reformed theologians have affirmed both points, yet they attempt to affirm a Sunday Sabbath on biblical authority alone, apart from tradition. That's where the Catholic view is more consistent.
Since I believe the Sabbath is one of two great creation institutions (marriage--one man and one woman--being the other), I believe consistency calls for devoting the seventh day to rest and worship. That does not mean, however, that I do not respect those who hold the other view or that I would ever claim that God does not receive their worship. I understand their position very well, and I believe those who hold it are honest and sincere in what they believe in this regard. It's just that I believe that separating the "ceremonial" aspect of the commandment from the moral (universal) aspect is dividing asunder what God has joined together. In some ways it's like saying that two people of the same sex can fulfill the divinely established purposes of marriage, and that the male-female aspect of marriage pertains only to that "be fruitful and multiply" part, which is not essential in a fully populated (overpopulated?) world. And you already know what I think about that.
Because of the feedback, it is my present intention to address this and related points further this Saturday at Bossier City, La.
VS
My response to him:
Vance,
If the ceremonial cannot be separated from the moral, then how do you justify not performing the sacrifices and rituals associated with the Holy Days? And, if your answer is that Jesus Christ fulfilled those aspects, aren't you effectively contradicting your assertion about separating the ceremonial from the moral? Also, doesn't that imply that Jesus Christ didn't fulfill ALL aspects of the Law? Moreover, sacrifices and circumcision were also instituted before Sinai, but I don't know of any Christians who are arguing that those elements were carried forward into the New Covenant. In other words, does the existence of the Sabbath prior to its inclusion in God's covenant with Israel really justify its inclusion in the terms of the New Covenant in Christ?
Finally, as the true bread from heaven (John 6:22-65) and the personification of the Sabbath rest (Matthew 11:28, Hebrews 4), are you suggesting that the manna and Sabbath of Exodus 16 didn't point to Jesus of Nazareth? If not, please explain how you believe Christ fulfilled that passage of Torah. As for the reference to same sex marriage, I've written a great deal on that subject. Hence, you already know what I think about that. I hope that your remarks at Bossier City will be posted on CGI's website - I'm looking forward to your explanation about these apparent contradictions in your view of these matters.
I'm not Vance. I justify not performing the sacrifices and rituals associated with the Holy Days b/c they were added under and associated with the Levitical Priesthood which Priesthood ceased to exist at Christ's death. But there were sacrifices before Sinai not associated with the Holy Days.
So, Anonymous Wednesday, July 31, 2024 at 9:01:00 PM PDT,
Are you acknowledging that some of the jots and tittles have passed away from the Law? And, are you suggesting that the sacrifices that were instituted before Sinai (and outside of the Levitical Priesthood) have survived into the New Covenant?
This is a slightly edited version of my reply left on an earlier post hear about the Law itself being “cultic” or “universal.” But it covers the key aspect of this topic.
Deut 4:1-2; 12:32-ch13; 30:1-10. The Law given by Moses cannot be added to nor taken away from, not even buy a prophet demonstrating signs and wonders (e.g., Christ or his followers), and is the same
Law prophesied to be written in faithful people’s hearts (the “New Covenant”). The only question is whether certain specific laws apply to Gentiles (note Deut 14:21 as an example of differential treatment in the Law), and for Anglo-Israelists whether or not Jeremiah 3 creates some sort of distinction in the matter for northern Israelites.
Historically, Leviticus 11 and Leviticus 23 matters were, and even are today, subject to such dispute. This would fit with the call in Romans 14 for questions of commanded observance to be of individual judgment. Ex. 31/Ezek. 20’s “sign” may indicate either special significance for Israel of the Sabbath or an Israelite-only Sabbath. Note also Titus 3:9’s call to for avoidance in the Christian context of “wranglings about the Law.” Acts 15 shows the early church concluding that circumcision was not obligatory on Gentiles, and the three or four provisions mentioned allude to the universal Noachide Code (and perhaps Lev 18-19, according to Bacchiocchi). Those possibly may also be specifically mentioned based on a Jewish tradition that those three things – idolatry (including “things strangled”), murder (“blood”), and fornication – are the three universal violations that no man of any heritage or blood may ever commit, even to save his own life.
Revelation 12 and 14’s reference to the “commandments of God” are not references to the Decalogue. They refer to all 636 commandments of the Pentateuch, leaving to the same matter of personal judgment for Gentiles the question as to whether and how far any specific obligations for them would go beyond Noachide.
So there you go. OT/NT contradictions resolved without any Tkach-esque abrogations, yet denying the Armstrong-esque Law-based distinction between “true” and “false” Christians. To follow on from what was mentioned before about the “Sabbath sign,” Rev 14:11 explicitly states that the “Mark of the Beast” is the Beast’s name or its derivative number — ignore the pertinent KJV editorial conjunction in Revelation 15, and use the alternate manuscript in Revelation 13 as the only way to square everything up.
It was probably this uncertainty regarding things like Leviticus 23 that opened the way for many Didache-type ideas, including a Sunday “Lord’s Day” as a substitute for the seventh-day sabbath. It certainly would fit with the Quartidecimian Passover/Easter dispute, and explain why Christian Passover observers in the east like Polycrates and Polycarp viewed those in the west deviating from the original pattern as nonetheless being brethren.
People don’t like considering the possibility of ethnic distinctions like that described, especially nowadays. Even setting aside PC, people read the “neither Jew nor Greek”-type verses and try to deny such distinctions. Yet those same passages also mention “neither male nor female.” All being “one in Christ Jesus” does not nullify distinctions on particular matters within the one Body. Rather, it holds to a community transcending those distinctions. It should be noted that the distinction would be based on Israel having the national Sinai Covenant relationship with God. The Jeremiah 3 reference earlier refers to a theory of some Anglo Israelists, including some of Jewish background, that the “divorce“ there terminates the Covenant relationship of the northern tribes. Some might misunderstand my reference to the “ethnic” aspect.
This theological schematic fits the first-century context, it doesn’t nullify any Scripture, and it undercuts Armstrongist “True Church” exclusivism. To show my age and juvenile television habits, it’s “Clarissa”: It “explains it all.”
Two parts:
Follow-up to previous reply, this specifically on topic:
Gen 2 demonstrates a rest by God connected to the seventh day, but does not issue a statute requiring the same of humans. Exodus 16 does have such a statute, and was given to the fleeing Israelites, as well as the “mixed multitude” among them. This inclusion of Gentiles is repeated in Exodus 20, using the phrase “strangers in your gates (communities).”
The issue is whether “strangers” (Gentiles) outside of that civic community are likewise required to do Sabbath rest. For instance, should one of the Gentile communities traveling with Israel decide to leave that camp and head off back to the original home, would the seventh day rest still be incumbent upon them?
Exodus 31 sets by covenant the sabbath rest as a “sign,” but only for the “children of Israel.” This can be taken as setting the Sabbath rest as Israelite-exclusive, meaning Gentiles outside of Israelite communities are not covered by the rest statute. By that line of thinking, when the Gentile community left, the command would not apply to them. Thank you for that as an American law that covers Americans overseas (such as prohibitions on bribing foreign officials), but only covers non-Americans when they are within our borders. (Not a perfect example, but it illustrates the point.) When those foreigners leave our borders, that long no longer applies to them. Indeed, that is probably the majority view of practicing Jews today regarding the Sabbath.
However, it can also be read as simply noting a particular significance between God and Israel of the practice, while the general rest command does apply to Gentiles. To explain this: Some you old folks like me will remember the Carol Burnett Show. Everybody watched Carol Burnett. And at the end of every episode, Burnett would give her ear lobe a little tug. Everybody knew the story. It was a greeting to her grandmother. FCC regs technically forbid the use of public airwaves for private communication. It is intended to head off certain abuses, which, if you use your imagination, you can picture. It happens all the time, of course. Somebody on a game show will give a shout-out to family members: “Hey, Mom! I’m on TV!” And the FCC doesn’t care. It’s just not a big deal. However, for a noted celebrity, starring in her own show, to do so on a regular basis, would require action. The regs have to mean something. As a result, Burnett could not give a shout-out to her grandmother every episode, but she COULD do that little gesture. It was an open secret. Everybody knew what it meant. The FCC knew what it meant. But it was at least a technical adherence to the regulation.
CONT
PART 2.
However, it was not something that only Carol Burnett could do. Anybody can tug on their ear lobe on TV. However, it held a special significance between Burnett and her grandmother. Just as Sabbath rest would, from this view, hold of special significance between the nation of Israel and the God of the Bible.
The pertinent history in this discussion, is that this question was a dispute in the first century. Jews and Gentile God-festers debated whether those Gentiles were covered by the rest command or not. Note that it was not one of those groups versus the other. People on both sides that divide held different views.
And so, as the Gospel message went out, it went into a world where worshipers of the biblical God were of two different basic views. And what did the Apostle Paul say regarding the matter? Romans 14. He didn’t take a side. You see, he was too busy telling about “Christ and him crucified” to delve into technical matters of the Law, and God apparently did not give him any “counsel” on this matter (cf Acts 20:27). Indeed, he issued directions not to get into “wranglings about the Law” (Tit 3:9). Each Christian was to be convinced in their own mind on the matter.
Historically, of course, the early church congregations followed the Leviticus 23 liturgy. Regardless of which side a given Gentile Christian might fall, he was still going to church the same day as everyone else (in the beginning, at least). Thus, Colossians 2, using the traditional Armstrong structuring (which indeed has some basis in the Greek), in discussing the impropriety of allowing non-biblical philosophies (Gnosticism) to influence Christian understanding and practice in such matters, would be taken to say that if pertinent controversies arise within the fellowship – such as the “Feast of Booze” excesses we all know, into which even those holding an Israelite-exclusive view of such matters can easily fall – they should be handled within the “Body of Christ” and judged on those principles. Individuals still must reach their own judgments regarding the Israelite-Gentile distinction, but regardless of that judgment they are not free use Leviticus 23 as an excuse to go to personal excesses.
One additional point, regarding the “Mark of the Beast” matter which people of the Adventist tradition – which includes Armstrongists – will assert as pertaining to the Sabbath/Sunday issue: Revelation 14:11 answers the question. Everybody has been asking about the “Mark.” The Mark is the name, or its derivative number, of the Beast. It is really that simple. We may not understand how it is manifested, but that is what it is. I will not do so here, but if someone asks I can go through chapter 13 to expound on this. Suffice for here is that to square with the clear statement in chapter 14, one uses the alternate manuscript in chapter 13 (otherwise there is a contradiction) and ignore the editorial (that means added) conjunction in chapter 15’s reference to the Mark.
There you go. You can see my earlier reply on here (presuming moderators allow it through) for more details, but that is the answer to the question.
FIN (That means the end.)
Applying Genesis 26:5 to mean Abraham engaged in commanded Sabbath rest depends on whether indeed a such a command was given prior to Exodus 16. Most used today will probably argue it was not. It was a subject of debate even in the first century. In Scripture, we must be careful not to add two or take away from laws in commands given to us.
You’re close. Those rituals and search for indeed attached to the Levitical priesthood. That means they were the ones who operate them. Since the Levitical operations are not going on at this time, individuals cannot do them. This is especially true for those located outside the Holy Land.
Nothing to do with being “added.” And nothing is abolished by Christ, as that would violate Deuteronomy 4:1-2. The whole issue is a red herring used by Tkach-types.
In reply to VS...
Outside of speculation, why should we think the seventh-day Sabbath was observed by anyone prior to Moses' time? Moses wrote that God finished his work and rested on the seventh day and blessed it. (It makes sense for Moses to write that, since the Sabbath ties in so well with the First Creation. But we all know there was another "In the beginning," with a New Creation.) But there's no record of him declaring it as a commandment until God placed it in the middle of the Big Ten in Moses' time -- just like there is no record of the Feast of Unleavened Bread until Moses' time.
Before we read of specific commandments coming directly from God, we see adultery, polygamy, phaggotry, idolatry, lying, killing, etc., during the evil times before Moses. But not once do we see accounts of pre-Mosaic villains breaking the Sabbath, keeping the "wrong days," or forsaking the holy days (things that are super serious in COG minds). The sons of Cain, and Lamech, and Nimrod, and pharaohs, and the men of Sodom, and all the others -- were these baddies keeping the Sabbath? Why wasn't sabbathbreaking chronicled as part of mankind's early sins?
Israel was severely reprimanded for idolatry and sabbathbreaking, but nothing about sabbathbreaking is mentioned concerning anyone else. That's very odd if the ceremonial seventh-day observance was the fist Commandment explicitly given by God for all of mankind to obey.
The Law is not something neatly divided up into parts, where some of them are "still in effect" while others have been abrogated, and our job is to figure out which ones are which. No, not at all. We are no longer under the Law. It has run its course, and has been fulfilled (not destroyed) by Jesus. The reason Catholics, for example, hold high the Ten Commandments is NOT because they were given through Moses, but because they were and are a great summary of the Law of Christ, Jesus being the New Lawgiver. (I might add it's no surprise that neither the New Lawgiver nor the teachings of his apostles ever commanded Saturdaykeeping.)
We can look to the Law of Moses only while wearing "Jesus glasses." He is the Lord of the Sabbath in the sense of being above it, not being subject to it or having his identity bound by it.
Consider, too, that Jesus was utterly incapable of sinning through murder, adultery, idolatry, coveting, etc. (which is to say, Jesus could not have sinned). During the period of time he appeared physically to his disciples after the Resurrection, nothing would have prevented him from -- if he had so chosen to -- doing some elective home repair work on a hot and sweaty Saturday morning before stopping to watch a ball game. It's not against God's nature to do things on Saturday. And neither do we sin by working on Saturday, and dedicating the "first day of the week" to the risen Lord who showed himself multiple times on the first day.
That felt kind of rambly, but it was my stream of consciousness before getting ready to go to work.
“Thank you for that as an American law… “ in one of my replies should read, “Think of it as an American law…”
These old eyes failed at proofreading way too often.
LH 726 writes, "I don't know of any Christians who are arguing that those elements were carried forward into the new covenant".
The last time I checked, those elements (circumcision, sacrifice, and the law itself) are very much alive and well in the NC. The difference for us is, the emphasis and our service has changed (see Romans 7:6,25).
Under the new covenant
Circumcision is STILL a present reality (Rom.2:29, Col.2:11, Phil. 3:3),
The "sacrifice" of Christ (John 3:16, Rom.5:10-11),
A priesthood offering sacrifices and offerings exists (Heb.7-9, Rom.12:1, 1 Pe.2:5-9)
The holydays are STILL being celebrated (1 Cor.5:7-8),
The Law of Moses is STILL being preached (1 Cor.9),
The LAW IS STILL (present tense)
Binding (Rom.7:2)
Holy, just, good and spiritual (Rom.7:12-14)
Lawful if used correctly (1 Tim.1:8)
STILL defines sin (Rom.3:20, 1 Jo.3:4)
SERVED by the Apostle Paul and NC Christians (Rom.7:25, 6).
But NOW (we have a different standing in the NC) we should SERVE (A different service resulting from that standing), in newness of spirit (the SAME LAW--form, with a different emphasis and substance)---Romans 7:6.
True worshippers now (NC times) worship the Father in spirit (substance) and truth (form), John 4:23-24.
Christ's fulfillment (enhancement, magnification) of the law is that substance. The form has not changed. God's standard of righteousness (the LAW) has not changed, but our relationship to it has, FOR THE BETTER!
Love summarizes and fulfills the law. It does not replace it.
Law proponents bandy about the Law of Moses without fully considering its implications. For instance, LTW takes the Armstrongist position that the Law of Moses is both inviolable and is written on the heart. With the only question being how it applies to Gentiles. That is not correct. The Law of Moses further states that if someone violates the Law of Moses, they should be executed. This is an inconvenient jot (or maybe it is a tittle) carried inherently by the law concerning the Sabbath. In fact, if it is not enforced, the Law of Moses written on the heart is violated. It is even an inviolable part of the Law of Moses how the death is to happen. The Sabbath violator is to be stoned by the entire congregation – men, women, children.
If Armstrongists really kept the Law of Moses, they would be running a judicial system that would prescribe execution in certain circumstances.
See https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2024/06/ministry-of-death-or-simply-law-of.html
Scout
The sabbath was made for man.....Mark 2:27. Made when? REMEMBER the sabbath day.....Ex 20:8.
It's been a law, for everybody, since Day 7.
It was actually one of our fears in the old days that HWA and his lackeys would reinstitute stonings once they did not have those pesky Constitution and Bill of Rights restricting them!
Part 1 to response to Scout:
Bless you, Scout, for pointing to perhaps my biggest annoyance with traditional Armstrongist religion (after their cult-adherence to the old pervo and Dugger’s concocted “True Church” doctrine, of course). Indeed, Gen 9:5-6 is a command to all descendants of Noah for criminal justice, and ultimately civil government. Commands, statutes, judgments, and ordinances in Torah derived from that Noachide law give guidance on how to do so. It is the job of CIVIL GOVERNMENTS, as civilized society is structured today, to carry out this core duty of mankind (cf Romans 13, for you NT folks out there).
Thus Christians no less than all others are called upon to perform civic duties, in whatever form they may specifically be set in a given jurisdiction (cf the general instruction of Deut 16:18-ch17 to set up some sort of governmental structure, yet with little in the way of specifics). This can include political involvement such as but not limited to voting, military and police/First Responder work (particularly if drafted to such), and in some cultures, with varying degrees and scope – perhaps most notably, in the USA: The Land of the Second Amendment – the option of judicious (cf Eccles 7:16-18) private bearing of arms “in defense of [one’s] home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power” (phrase borrowed from A1.23 of Missouri state Constitution).
Part 2 to response to Scout:
Each individual must make their own judgments as to how to carry out this responsibility. There are individual circumstances and personal limitations (no one can do everything — cf Eccles 7:16-28 again). God will judge their priorities and performance.
A key factor in this is the imperfection of a given civil structure. Indeed, regardless of one’s conclusion as to the applicability of Sinai Torah to Gentiles (the issue discussed in earlier replies by yours truly), every nation today – Israelite or not – has limitations and imperfections in its legalities. Yet Gen 9, et al, remain for the Bible believer. Thus to try to establish oneself as distinct from the duty remains a Gen 9 violation, and thus a violation of its derivative directives.
Christians are told to act in the context of, subject to, and to the extent authorized by current civil structures (as in 1 Pet 2:11-17). Jesus’ civil kingship is not here yet (note John 18:36). Thus, the existent civil authority is no less for them how they generally fulfill Gen 9.
CONT
Part 3 to response to Scout:
To address the issue of deviation between Torah (as deemed applicable to a given community) and civil legalities: If, for instance, Torah says that a given crime should be punished by death, but the legalities in that jurisdiction only allow for life imprisonment, then a judge or juror should give the penalty they are authorized to give. Judgments, however imperfect we and our societies may be, must be made. Gen 9 overrides human imperfections. Failure to condemn the guilty can be as repugnant to Jehovah as condemning the innocent (Ezekiel 13:19b).
That noted, if a given Torah violation is not a civil crime – e.g., certain religious failures – then no judge or juror stands authorized to enforce it. It is a weakness and failing of the system, but sometimes we fail. There are OT examples of “good” kings who “did what was right in the side of the Lord,” while at times pagan worship remained. Whether this was allowed due to a sense of “freedom of religion,” or the political realities of the time (pagan rituals were sometimes simply cover for prostitution and other indulgences), it is simply the case that no society is perfect. Had the “good” king acted imprudently, he may well have found himself overthrown, and the country ending up in a much worse condition. To borrow a pragmatic phrase from a present-day politician regarding his approach to a very sensitive social issue today, “We have to win elections.” Think of it along those Ecclesiastes lines. Societal politics is vanity, and chapter 7:16-18 applies. We do our best per Gen 9, but there’s only so much any of us can do.
The general and expressly universal command of Gen 9 holds stands as an obligation for all to God and community. Whatever weaknesses and limitations exist in the current situation, the duty remains.
Thank you again, Scout. Torah most certainly includes enforcement provisions. And you see above how, biblically speaking, the individual in Torah is to carry out his or her responsibility in that regard – however imperfect we may be.
END
Somethng no one here is considering:
"If the moral law is eternal, and the Sabbath is a moral law, then the Sabbath is eternal. Yay! But...
Genesis 1: 5, God created day and night. How can the Sabbath day exist before there was day? Let alone the seventh one. It cannot. Most Sabbatarians point at Genesis 2: 2 to justify the Sabbath day. How can we look here in Genesis for the Sabbath yet it existed eternally before that?
In the Kingdom there will be no day or night or need for the sun (REV. 21:22 - 22: 5). No day or night means no weekly Sabbath day. The Sabbath day is utterly dependent on day and night - by definition and by law! It could not exist before there was a sun, and it cannot exist after the sun is gone. How can the Sabbath be eternal when we can demonstrate from the Bible that the concept of day and night are not eternal?
You could also look towards the point of the Sabbath - rest. How can we have a rest when there is no longer any toil to rest from? The definition of a Sabbath rest is not simply rest, it is rest from assigned regular duties. No toil, no point to rest. Just like in Eden. What did Adam have to rest from? He was in paradise! So it will be in the future." https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2024/06/common-legalist-arguments-part-vi.html
LTW 4:04's-Nothing to do with being “added.”.....vs..... "It was added".....Gal 3:19
Anon 9:50:
Circumcision was made for man, too.
And it was a law.
BP8,
In the Spiritual sense, yes, sacrifice and circumcision are part of the New Covenant, but NOT in the physical sense. In other words, I don't know of any Christians who are proposing that we cut the foreskins of males or offer animals as sacrifices. Once again, what Jesus of Nazareth accomplished FULFILLED the Law - ALL of it! Likewise, Jesus is the real bread of life, and the real rest. Under the New Covenant, the Hebrew Scriptures (Torah, Prophets, and Writings) are still relevant, because they pointed to Christ and are still helpful in expanding our knowledge of him and what he has accomplished for us. It is the ACOGs who are claiming that we have done away with the Law, NOT us! In short, many of us believe that sacrifices/offerings, Levitical Priesthood, circumcision, Sabbath, Holy Days, clean and unclean, patriarchs, promises, righteousness, etc. pointed to Jesus of Nazareth and find their fulfillment in him.
The Gospel of Mark informs us that the Pharisees claimed that Christ's disciples were violating the Sabbath rest by picking grain from the stalks to satisfy their hunger (Mark 2:23-24). We are also informed in this passage that Christ replied: "The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27, NLT) God knew, even before he created us, that we (humans) would need to rest from our own works. Hence, the Sabbath pointed to Christ's work on our behalf - the work which would ultimately result in our eternal rest in him! In other words, the Sabbath was NOT created to require us to jump through additional hoops or test our faithfulness to God. As with the rest of Torah, the New Covenant Sabbath is NOT found in a list of dos and don'ts.
Scout 733
Like Vance Stinson commented on a previous post (Law of Moses, Cultic or Universal, comment # 7/24/307),
"There are numerous other laws that do not apply directly to us"!
Scout knows this! Laws pertaining to a Theocracy and organized punishment of sin is of none effect if there isn't a theocracy. There are other laws that follow this rule.
Nice try Scout.
In terms of a full "day", how would those days prior to the creation of the sun be marked? Were they just randomly assigned 24 hours? Does heaven spin on an axis? If we sent astronauts to gallivant on Mars, would they observe a "earth Sabbath" or a "Mars sabbath" as a day on Mars is of a different length than Earth's?
I realize it all sounds like wild trivia to a devoted Sabbatarian who takes it all as a given, but the mechanics don't make sense.
3:25 - "the Sabbath was NOT created to require us to jump through additional hoops or test our faithfulness to God".
vs
Ex 16:4 NLT "Then the Lord said to Moses, “Look, I’m going to rain down food from heaven for you. Each day the people can go out and pick up as much food as they need for that day. I will test them in this to see whether or not they will follow my instructions."
if sabbatarian spacefarers trekked off to Mars, they'd be at best keeping a Mayflower ship sabbath while travelling despite orthodox Jews setting up neighborhood rope borders for sabbath travel limits etc.
then once on Mars, they'd have the option to keep sabbath based on their home time or even Jerusalem time
it seems that space & even the milky way do spin, but COG often dismisses these deep depth queries as simply "non salvation issue" concerns
but they'll all ask someday, so why not now...it gets us off the sick polarizing politics news fights at least
Anonymous 12:42 -
You are using an old Armstrong WCG interpretation of Galatians 3:19, which was actually dropped in the early 1980s. What was “added” there was the Sinai Covenant codification. By 1995 a lot of the WCG ministry had forgotten this, and in challenging Tkach reverted back to the earlier doctrine. I remember quickly spotting that the doctrine uses the “moral/ceremonial” distinction. There is no such formal distinction in the Law. I saw that it referred the Sinai Covenant (in Jewish usage, the term “Law” is sometimes used synonymously the Covenant). Paul was, addressing the Gentile Galatians not being part of that covenant.
I asked about it in early 1995 of a WCG minister still holding to the Law, one of Jewish heritage, and he basically confirmed my conclusion and informed me of the 1980s Armstrong-era doctrinal change.
The point of my comment was that the rituals and such you were talking are indeed attached to the Levitical priesthood. That is why they largely have no application to the bulk of the population. And even Levitical descendants have a little involvement in them now, until the Levitical service is restored. That it was set up after Gen 17 (“added”) is largely immaterial.
It’s a technical thing, I know.
Anonymous 12:42 -
Tiny correction: Toward the end of my response to you, the sentence should be, “And even Levitical descendants have LITTLE involvement in them now, until the Levitical service is restored.” No article “a”. My point was that those aspects have very little application at this time even for Levites. My apologies for the typo. These voice dictation systems are addictive to use, and then reach out and bite you.
Anyone who has ever tried to pull something out of the grip of a dog's mouth knows how futile an effort that is- the dog just bites down harder and growls in a tug of war.
Of course, we know this has nothing to do with Sabbatarianism...
How telling "Ronco".
It was asked above:
“What did Adam have to rest from?”
Answer: working and caring, but cp. Mt 12:5 - see part 2 below.
As I have suggest before what was actually ‘created’ in Genesis 1 and 2 was Eden and its Garden.
"But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth "(Daniel 2:35b, NIV).
Eden was God’s attempt to order a chaotic situation in the neolithic age.
Order out of Chaos - from Genesis to Revelation”.
“YHWH is building a new Temple, therefore creating a new world, and vice versa... I am led to wonder whether "heaven and earth" in Isa 65:17 and elsewhere is not functioning as a name for Jerusalem... Perhaps it is not coincidence that the Hebrew Bible begins with an account of the creation of heaven and earth by the command of God (Gen. 1:1) and ends with the command of the God of heaven "to build him a Temple in Jerusalem" (2 Chron. 36:23). It goes from creation (temple) to Temple (creation) in twenty-four books" (Jon D. Levenson, The Temple and the World, p.295).
I would suggest that the last sentence could read: “It goes from the Edenic temple to Zerubbel’s temple in twenty four books” - new beginnings.
Including the NT it also could read “It goes from the Edenic Temple to an Edenic City in 66 books.
Ge 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights [me'or] in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night;...
Ge 1:15 And let them be for lights [me'or] in the firmament of the heaven to give light ['or] upon the earth:...
Ex 35:14 The candlestick also for the light [me'or], and his furniture, and his lamps, with the oil for the light [me'or],
"The Hebrew word translated "lights" (me'orot) is not used frequently (19x in its various forms). Most occurrences are in the Pentateuch (15x)... What is intriguing is that the ten occurrences in the Pentateuch outside of Genesis (Ex 25:6; 27:20; 35:8, 14[2x], 28; 39:7; Lev 24:2; Num 4:9, 16) all refer to the light of the lampstand that lights up the tabernacle. The use of the word "lights" may then be our first clue that there is another whole dimension to this text... the description of the cosmos as a temple or sanctuary of God" (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, pp.123-24).
I would suggest that description of the microcosm, that is Eden as a new heaven and earth, was a sanctuary/temple of God.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ... let them make (‘asah) me a sanctuary (Exodus 25:1, 8, AV).
“Israel made the tabernacle, even as God made the world...” (James K. Bruckner, Exodus, NIBC, p.231).
“Commentators for centuries have noticed that the phrase “the LORD said to Moses” occurs seven times in chapters 25-31. The first six concern the building of the tabernacle and its furnishings (25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1), while the final introduces the Sabbath command (31:12). It seems clear that the purpose of this arrangement is to aid the reader in making the connection between the building of the tabernacle and the seven days of creation, both involving six creative acts culminating in a seventh-day rest” (Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC, p.509).
Eden/Garden of Eden/Outside the Garden
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads (Genesis 2:10, AV).
“Because the garden in Genesis was planted in a well-watered place (Eden), it took Eden as its name. But technically speaking, the garden should be understood as adjoining Eden because the waters flows from Eden and waters the garden (see Gen. 2:10)” (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, p.168)...
Part 2
“I would add to this that the land and seas to be subdued by Adam outside the Garden were roughly equivalent to the outer court of Israel’s subsequent temple, which would lend further confirmation to the above identification of Israel’s temple courtyard being symbolic of the land and seas throughout the earth. Thus, one may be able to perceive an increasing gradation in holiness from outside the garden proceeding inward: the region outside the garden is related to God and is ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31) in that it is God creation (= the outer court); the garden itself is a sacred space separated from the outside world (= the holy place), where God’s priestly servants worships God by obeying him, by cultivating and guarding; Eden is where God dwells (= the holy of holies) as the source of both physical and spiritual life (symbolized by the waters)” (G. K Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission, NSBT, pp.74-75)...
Keeping the Garden
The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work [‘abad] it and take care of [shamer] it (Genesis 2:15, NIV).
They are to take care of [shamar] all the furnishings of the Tent of Meeting, fulfilling the obligations of the Israelites by doing [‘abad] the work of the tabernacle (Numbers 3:8, NIV).
“... (1) since there are a couple of contexts in which smr [“take care of”] is used for Levitical service along with ‘bd [“work”] (e.g., Num. 3:8-9), (2) since the context used of smr here favors sacred space, (3) since ‘bd is as likely to refer to sacred service as to agricultural tasks, and (4) since there are other indications that the garden is being portrayed as sacred space, it is likely that the tasks given to Adam are of a priestly nature - that is caring for sacred space. In ancient thinking, caring for sacred space was a way of upholding creation. By preserving order, chaos was held at bay” (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, p.173).
“Adam’s priestly role of ‘guarding’ (samar) the garden sanctuary may also be reflected in the later role of Israel’s priests who were called ‘guards’ (1 Chr. 9:23) and repeatedly referred to as temple ‘gatekeepers’ (repeatedly in 1 and 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah: e.g., 1 Chr. 9:17-27) who ‘kept [samar] at the gates’ (Neh. 11:19), ‘so that no one should enter who was in any way unclean’ (2 Chr. 23:19)” (G. K Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission, NSBT, p.69).
“If Eden is seen then as an ideal sanctuary, then perhaps Adam should be described as an archetypal Levite” (G. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” [in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A: The Period of the Bible, (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986)] p.21), noted by John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, p.186).
“Genesis 2 reflects the concept of sacred space and the sacred compass, and it served as the model for the tabernacle and later the temple” (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, p.193).
“It is necessary, however, to move beyond the “serving and preserving” role. If people were going to fill the earth, we must conclude that they were not intended to stay in the garden in a static situation. Yet moving out of the garden would appear a hardship since the land outside of the garden was not as hospitable as that inside the garden (otherwise the garden would not be distinguishable). Perhaps, then we should surmise that people were gradually supposed to extend the garden as they went about subduing and ruling. Extending the garden would ... [be] extending sacred space (since that is what the garden represented)” (John Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, p.186).
BP8 3:52 wrote, "Laws pertaining to a Theocracy and organized punishment of sin is of none effect if there isn't a theocracy."
This is a nice little statement. Where did you get it and why do you think it is true? Like LTW, you may have decreed it on your own authority. Perhaps, you are your own Sanhedrin.
After the Second Temple fell in 70 AD, Jews repackaged the Law of Moses to function without a Temple. This gave rise to Temple-less Rabbinic Judaism. The death penalties survived this repackaging even though there was no theocracy. A couple of centuries later, I think, the Romans removed the right of the Jews to exact the death penalty. In other words, dropping the death penalty because there was no theocracy was not an obvious idea to the Jews.
There is no limit to the principle you present. I could decree that there is no Sabbath requirement because there is no theocracy to enforce its keeping. The Sabbath is linked inseparably to the death penalty in the Law of Moses and to cancel the theocratic death penalty is to cancel the Sabbath.
"There are numerous other laws that do not apply directly to us"! is an Armstrongist ploy that permits them to pick and choose what they want to keep. Without any authority, BTW. Ask LTW - it's about the whole law.
Scout
LTW Three Parts wrote, “. . . then a judge or juror should give the penalty they are authorized to give”
This makes the Law of Moses a creature of the State. Yet, the Torah is the inviolable eternal law that is written on the heart of every believer under the New Covenant supposedly. I think you see that there is an unresolved issue here.
The classical Armstrongist belief is that believer should obey the laws of the land except where there is a violation of the Torah. You have departed from this by placing the State above the Torah. If the Torah says you should execute your son because he watched five minutes of football on the Sabbath, how does civil law trump the Law of God? How does a human authority trump a divine authority? You statement quoted above mentions “authorized to give.” Authorized by whom and what is their relationship with God and his law? sAlso, is it the case that the Torah is written on the hearts of only Jewish believers and the Noachide laws are written on the hearts of Gentiles? Where is the exegesis? Or will you just make up a rule?
I know of only one capital case modelled in the New Testament. That is the case of Ananias and Sapphira. And church authorities or lay members were not involved in this death penalty. God did it himself. Regarding the Old Covenant, when Jesus was presented by the Jews with the woman who was caught in adultery, he took a compassionate approach to the enforcement of the Law of Moses. He said that the person who had not sinned should cast the first stone. I do not think that you will find in this the kind of civil model you are hoping for.
Christians are to obey the Law of Christ. They also have civic responsibilities. The formation of church policy that resolves the tension between the two is a minefield. It is not a hip pocket activity.
Scout
There is no day before the first day.
Scout:
1. Torah authorization of “the State”:
Deut 16:18 (derivative of Gen 9) — “Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment” (KJV). Cf NT Romans 13:1-7.
—
2. Difference (if any) between Jewish/Israelite and Gentile writing on hearts:
Academic theology question. Functional issue is specific applicability (e.g., Deut 14:21; cf NT Acts 15), not text.
———
These issues have already been addressed elsewhere in our discussions.
Scout 626
You are descending into a fruitless discussion.
My comment was based on a genuine constituted autocratic Theocracy supported from Heaven, not a band of rag tag Jews who usurp God and establish their own REPACKAGED authority.
"to cancel the death penalty is to cancel the sabbath"?
That's such a nice around the north pole little statement. Who's their own Sandhedrin now?
Also, according to Torah, the man on the street was not permitted to pronounce guilt and carry out punishment on his own. That was reserved for those in authority according to the civil distinctions in the law.
Civil laws for civil authorities to execute.
Priesthood laws for the PRIESTS only.
Laws pertaining to SLAVES. Laws pertaining to the military. Laws directed to men only, to women only. The list goes on and on.
Once again, nice try.
LTW wrote, Torah authorization of "the State"
I think you are citing a case where the the State does not authorize the Torah but the Torah authorizes the State. That does not seem to fit what you are talking about in Part 3. If the Torah authorizes the State, that means that there is no "deviation between the Torah and civil legalities." You are talking about the "legalities of the jurisdiction" at times being discrepant with the Torah. You originally started writing about Christians living in a secular civil government. Then you seemed to switch to a case where a Christian judge must follow his secular limits of authorization rather than follow the Torah. I am not sure what you are trying to assert.
LTW also wrote, "Difference (if any) between Jewish/Israelite and Gentile writing on hearts. Academic theology question."
I am not going to let you wave this question aside. If the Jews are under the Law of Moses and the Gentiles are under the Noachide Law there is enormous difference in the standards used for judgment and an enormous difference in what is written on the heart. This creates two pathways to salvation. (I am speaking here of the Armstrongist soteriology of qualifying for salvation with works. Very different from Christian soteriology.) I do not think Armstrong intended this bifurcation. Leviticus 24 states, “You shall have one law for the alien and for the native-born, for I am the Lord your God.” In the New Testament, even though the Jews observed Torah as a cultural heritage, Peter said in Acts 15 as a specific reference to the Circumcision Party controversy, “…we believe that we (Jews) will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they (Gentiles) will.” Despite the cultural trappings it all boils down to the same mode of salvation.
Scout
PS. The fact that according to Deuteronomy, the Israelites could give carrion to Gentiles and yet in Leviticus it says that there should be one law for both might be one of those discrepancies in the Bible that show it clearly to be an object of curation by human scribes. According to the Documentary Hypothesis, the statement in Deuteronomy was written by the Deuteronomist faction and the statement in Leviticus was written by the Priestly faction. And when the post-exilic scribes edited the Torah, they left these statements discrepant. Which, then, is written on the heart?
Lonnie writes:
“In short, many of us believe that sacrifices/offerings, Levitical Priesthood, circumcision, Sabbath, Holy Days, clean and unclean, patriarchs, promises, righteousness, etc. pointed to Jesus of Nazareth and find their fulfillment in him.”
But does fulfillment imply “termination”?
No.
Looking at the law of Christ for the new/renewed covenant with Israel, in order of above:
(But first a qualification, if the Bible was written today using modern western thoughtforms, informed by NT revelation, it is suggested the Torah would be termed the law of Christ
Isa 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us.
The Lord in the absolute/principal sense is God, but in the dynamic/agent sense it is Jesus; in regard to saving cp. 1 Tim 1:1 (absolute/principal - God) and Titus 1:4b (dynamic/agent - Jesus).
Eze 45:17 It will be the duty of the prince to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink offerings at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths—at all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel. He will provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel.
The guilt offering (AV) is not mentioned above as it is not a ‘public’ festival offering; but it is not missing - see Eze 40:39; 42:13; 44:29; 46:20).
Jer 33:15a In those days, and at that time
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.
In those days, in context, is a messianic age formula. Levitical priests will be required for the purifying of the flesh and offering fellowship offerings.
Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.
Both Israelite and stranger will not be able to participate in temple worship of Jesus in the Messianic Age. This has implications for the fulfillment of Isa 66:23 and Zech 14:16.
Isa 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
Strangers who enter into covenant with the Lord will express their love for the Lord by keeping the sabbath. See Eze 46:3-4 for the law of Christ (aka the Ezekiel’s Torah) for the ‘change’ in sacrifices required for the NC sabbath.
Eze 45:23a And seven days of the feast
Eze 45:25 In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he do the like in the feast of the seven days
The feast of UB and Tabernacles will be kept in the Messianic Age.
Eze 44:23 And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.
In the Messianic Age it will be the duty of the Levitical priests to teach God’s people about the unclean and clean. This is not a job description for those in the first resurrection - once changed to bear the image of the heavenly then the heavenly realms become the home of the Saints (Eph 1:3; 2:6 (prolepses) (NIV), cp. 2 Tim 4:18).
Jer 3:18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.
Leaving aside the typological aspects the above captures a fulfillment for the “patriarchs” and “promises”.
Page 2
Isa 62:1 For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.
Isa 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.
Isa 62:12 And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.
“At times the description of Zion in this chapter is very concrete - its name, its land, its wall. In other places it is very abstract: glory, salvation, righteousness. But in a sense the last verse of the chapter is key to all. The real glory of Zion will be its inhabitants: the Holy People, the Redeemed of the Lord (12), gathered in from the nations as well as from Israel.
Eze 43:4 And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east.
Eze 43:6a And I heard him speaking unto me out of the house;
Eze 43:7a And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever
“The chapter as a whole is much more about God’s delight in his people than about bricks and mortar. City, land, people, glory, are all aspects of one dazzling reality: God with his people and they with him. Descriptions of Zion in a passage like this are, at their deepest level, descriptions of the people of God in their final, glorified state” (Barry Webb, The Message of Isaiah, BST, pp.237-38).
“The righteousness [sidqa] of God is going to be seen in the character of the saved Israel... Thus its appearance in 60:3, 19, and here expresses the presence of divine character as reflected by his grace (see also 9:2 and Prov 4:18). It is God’s character dawning on an Israel that confesses its inability to do righteousness that will draw all the nations to its light. God here promises to be indefatigable in bringing that day to pass” (John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, chapters 40-66, NICOT, pp.578-579).
1. Yes, Torah put responsibility and authorization for community enforcement in the hands of what you call “the State” (“judges and officers”). Or if you want to look at it this way, Torah specifically calls for the establishment of the State for this function. I don’t care how or which way you look at it. The result is the same.
=
2. The question has no practical impact in terms of human behavior or real-world history. I was keeping the conversation in the practical realm. (Plus, I was tired of your attitude inane and repetitious hypocrisy of talking about the Bible has divine, then rejecting it when it gets inconvenient for you.) That said, I will remind you what I wrote in an earlier conversation, this specifically to your friend Miller/Lonnie that has a practical analogy, which indirectly addresses your question:
—
Miller, et al, you err in trying to read my statement as involving some sort of “taking away” from the Torah when it comes to Gentiles. There is no removal. It is simply a case that certain aspects of it do not apply to Gentiles in terms of commanded obedience.
It is much like the United States Constitution in this regard. That document is the supreme law of the land. However, there are aspects that only apply to empowering or restraining the federal government, and aspects that only apply to empowering or restraining the state governments. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment specifically notes this. Before the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights was held to NOT restrict action by the states. States could restrict speech, religious practice, RKBA, and many other practices expressly referenced as protected in that collection of amendments. Indeed, some aspects of it are still held to not restrict actions by the individual states. This did not and does not “take away from” the document. It was and is in fact PART of the document.
To use something of your perspective without necessarily endorsing it, think of it as the WHOLE LAW carrying to the “New Covenant,” but – or actually, and – for the Gentile, some (or many) aspects of it may not apply, even as was the case prior to the Christ event. A Gentile Christian carries the entire Law in his heart, even if some aspects do not apply to him, even as a given U.S. state is “subject… to the Constitution of the United States” (a line from my own state’s constitution), even though parts of the document do not apply to it as such…
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2024/07/bible-talk-law-of-moses-cultic-or.html?showComment=1722230148300&m=1#c2590629576075445567
—
(That last sentence needs a rewrite, but the thought is clear.)
I go on to tell him not to “play theology.” That goes to what I said about dealing with practical impact, not theoretical… stuff.
=
As for your alleged discrepancy: If it is reconcilable, then the Bible does not hold authority as divine word, and thus Christianity is a false religion. I demonstrated how Torah calls for community enforcement of certain laws to be done, and that there is a distinction between Israelite and Gentile in the Torah in terms of applicability of certain specific laws.
BP8 is right. You are constantly descending into “ fruitless discussions.” It’s all academic and theoretical, not to mention repetitive and inconsistent. I answered your questions and demonstrated my point.
Get a life. And live it.
Part 1,2 wrote: "But does fulfillment imply “termination”?"
Yes it does if Pauline theology states that it is obsolete.
Scout
Scout said: “ Part 1,2 wrote: "But does fulfillment imply “termination”?"
Yes it does if Pauline theology states that it is obsolete. “
—
No, it does not if the pre-existing Law of Moses precludes such a theology in the religion of Jehovah. And it does: Deut 4:1-2: 12:32-ch13; 30:1-10.
Or else, Christianity is a false religion.
Glad to clear that up.
Correction to 7:10 PM post: the end should be that if the issue is IRRECONCILABLE. Sorry.
The Biblical concept of "fulfillment" has many schools of thought. It is NOT exact science. Even among scholars who appear to believe alive disagree on certain particulars.
On this site, understanding "fulfillment" is a key component to many arguments, such as the law, the covenants, the Millennium, and prophecy. Battleground scriptures (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 24:44:46, Acts 3:19-21) are always interpreted to one's advantage. Lines have been drawn in the sand that factor into the equation,
OC verses NC?
The law and the prophets were until John?
"It is finished"? and so on.
Is there room for compromise? Not likely. As Lonnie has said, most are "not going to read or listen to anything that might change my mind"! That's ok, we all have strong convictions.
Personally, I'm not ready to adopt an interpretation that dismisses a huge portion of scripture and robs it of its plain, literal meaning in favor of human reasoning and word gymnastics. I'm sure many of you think the same of me.
Thanks to Lee for his fresh input and multi-part man for his usual, thorough explanations on these complicated subjects.
LTW 12:41 wrote, "No, it does not if the pre-existing Law of Moses precludes such a theology in the religion of Jehovah.".
Jesus said several times in the Sermon on the Mount, “You have heard that it was said to those of old...” as an introduction of a new concept. Jesus then follows this up with, “But I say...”. Apparently, Jesus thought he was giving us something that was not in the “pre-existing Law of Moses.”
Maybe one day you will meet Jesus and you can tell him that he couldn’t do that because you made up a rule against it. Then add: “Glad to clear that up.”
Scout
Vance Stinson, LTW, and BP8 appear to be trying to get around the Greek word "pleroo" in their commentary and responses to Scout. Blue Letter Bible records this for the word: πληρόω plēróō, play-ro'-o; from G4134; to make replete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.:—accomplish, × after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply. This is the word employed in Christ's statement in Matthew 5:17.
It is also the word used throughout the Gospels to say that this or that happened to fulfill something that had been spoken/written by one of the prophets of old. This same Greek word is also employed to describe the fish filling the net in Matthew 13:48, and how the Christ child was filled with wisdom (Luke 2:40). Likewise, the same word was used in John 7:8 to say that the time had not yet come, and how the house was filled with the scent of the ointment (John 12:3). It is also used to describe how that sound of a "rushing mighty wind" filled their meeting place on that Pentecost after Christ's ascension to heaven (Acts 2:2). Hence, we see (as the entry for this word at Blue Letter Bible indicates) that this Greek word is used in the writings of the New Testament to indicate something that has been made full, filled up, rendered full, completed, carried into effect, realized, accomplished, etc. In other words, if something has been fulfilled, there is nothing left to do or nothing more to be added!
Also, please note that Mr. Stinson, LTW, and BP8 continue to advocate that some of the commandments of Torah are not carried forward into the New Covenant, or no longer apply to us or some individuals. In other words, all of their commentary here has clearly advocated SUBTRACTING or ELIMINATING some of the commandments of Torah. Sure, they employ various rationales for doing so, but the effect is the same. Some of the provisions of Torah are not performed! Hence, once again, the reader is invited to choose between their parsing and cherry picking of the Law, and the Scriptural rationale employed in the original post.
But the "something" is still there.
Lonnie at 713 states, "Bp8 continues to advocate that some of the commandments of Torah no longer apply to some individuals" thus he is "subtracting or eliminating some of the commandments", hence "some of the provisions are not performed"???
Not so. The provisions are performed by those to whom have been given that duty. The laws concerning the priesthood are performed and carried out by the PRIESTS, not Joe 6-pack. It was the responsability of the civil authorities to carry out the civil part of the law. Vigilantism was not permitted. Certain aspects of the law are not directed toward and therefore do not apply to every individual.
Is this that hard to understand? No cherry picking here, just reality.
Also, as you note, pleroo has many meanings depending on the context. And don't forget, Matt.5:18 uses a different word for fulfilled (ginomai) which adds another dimension. This is a broad subject!
Scout said: Maybe one day you will meet Jesus and you can tell him that he couldn’t do that because you made up a rule against it. Then add: ‘Glad to clear that up.’”
I would be glad to do that. The only problem is, if he indeed did what you claim he did, it would likely be a pretty hot meeting. By the grace of God, I will have, as politicians say, a previous engagement.
“Fully preach.” Yeah, that would work perfectly in Matthew 5 for “pleroo,” as opposed to a meaning would exactly contradict the clause before it. Otherwise, Jesus would be a false prophet (Deut 12:32-ch13).
(I went through the Battle of 1995. Believe me, I’ve worked more antinomian/abrogationist arguments than most seventh-day Sabbatarians – be they SDB, SDA, CG7/ACOG, or whatever – have ever known or will ever even know.)
Miller/Lonnie:
I am calling you out on some prime Bravo Sierra you spewed about me. You LIED when you claim I “ advocate that some of the commandments of Torah are not carried forward into the New Covenant, or no longer apply to us or some individuals.” When talking about a distinction between Israelites and Gentiles in terms of whether specific Torah points apply to them, I said, using your perspective, to “think of it as the WHOLE LAW carrying to the ‘New Covenant,’ but – or actually, and – for the Gentile, some (or many) aspects of it may not apply, even as was the case prior to the Christ event” (see link below).
“[E]ven as was the case prior to the Christ event.”
You BS’ed these people because your case falls apart. You lied in an attempt to discredit me. It shows how strong my simple citation of Moses truly is.
Apologize and correct the record at least three times on here, or you stand discredited, and Jesus hates you.
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2024/07/bible-talk-law-of-moses-cultic-or.html?showComment=1722021314933&m=1#c5010372440468003500
I will tell you and Scout this: The real reason I go after you two for your borderline Tkachism is that it harms the effort against Armstrongism. Your ideas are actually against much of mainstream Protestantism. They may reject seventh-day Sabbath observance for the wrong reasons, but fundamentally they do not buy in to be complete abrogationism you two promote. By pushing Tkach doctrine, you only reinforce typical Armstrongists in not only Law adherence, but the renewed devotion to the cult that some developed from 1995.
Just thought you should know.
Miller/Lonnie:
I am calling you out on some incorrect things you said about me. You ought to have known better when you claimed I “advocate that some of the commandments of Torah are not carried forward into the New Covenant, or no longer apply to us or some individuals.” When talking about a distinction between Israelites and Gentiles in terms of whether specific Torah points apply to them, I said, using your perspective, to “think of it as the WHOLE LAW carrying to the ‘New Covenant,’ but – or actually, and – for the Gentile, some (or many) aspects of it may not apply, even as was the case prior to the Christ event” (see link below).
“[E]ven as was the case prior to the Christ event.”
You misinformed these people. You owe me (and BP8) apologies, and the others here an express correction.
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2024/07/bible-talk-law-of-moses-cultic-or.html?showComment=1722021314933&m=1#c5010372440468003500
LTW,
Didn't you say "It is simply a case that certain aspects of it do not apply to Gentiles in terms of commanded obedience"? What about Paul's statement that there is neither Jew or Gentile, male or female, in Christ? What about the fact that the commandments were all addressed to the children of Israel? - that NONE of the commandments were directed at Gentiles (they weren't part of that covenant)? Didn't James write that when someone breaks one commandment, he breaks the whole Law?
Didn't you go on to compare the operation of the Law to some of the provisions of the U.S. Constitution which only apply to Federal and State governments? And, yet the Constitution still only applies to citizens of the United Sates. Sure, there are some of the provisions of Torah which applied to the sanctuary, males, or the priesthood in particular, but they are still addressed to the people of Israel. In other words, they didn't apply to Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, or Romans! Stated yet another way, if Gentiles were excluded from the New Covenant, then your argument would be more applicable to this discussion.
I'm sorry that you can't see it, but your argument excludes some of the provisions of the Law as being applicable to at least some of the folks who are parties to the covenant! You want to have it both ways. You don't want to be accused of subtracting from Torah, but that is exactly what you are doing - you are rationalizing away the obligation of some folks to obey some of the commandments by claiming that they simply don't apply to some folks. Talk about dancing around semantics!
As you accused me of lying about your position, I could justly make that charge against you. My thesis is that Jesus fulfilled the whole Law - ALL of it - both the letter and the spirit of the Law! I have NOT advocated that Torah has been abrogated or nullified, just fulfilled. Consistent with this position, is that Christ also based the New Covenant on the same principles which summarized Torah. Christians, those who have accepted Christ and have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit will love God and their neighbors. There is no higher moral law than that! Hence, the accusation that I am antinomian is shown to be spurious.
LTW 10:42
What you stated about me is inaccurate. I doubt that I believe in what you call "complete abrogationism" but I am not sure because you have not defined that term. I believe in the discontinuance of the Law of Moses and its replacement by the Law of Christ, as did the Apostle Paul and the author of Hebrews. But since both bodies of legislation are derived from God, there are similarities between the two. At the moral level, near correspondnce. At the level of the letter of the law, there is little similarity. Just as in the case of circumcision. Circumcision exists in the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ but in the Law of Christ it is spiritual and not physical. That cannot be called "complete abrogation." It was actually Miller Jones who pointed out to me the mistake I was making by using the inapt term "abrogation."
You and BP8 have styled yourselves to be "Great Defenders of the Law." In so doing, you have committed the error of the Circumcision Party whose machinations in the early church triggered the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15.
Scout
Would we even care about this stuff if we had not been exposed to Armstrongism? And yet now we are locked into perpetual conflict with neither side capable of convincing the other, all the while portraying the debate as the penultimate battle for eternal life.
What if it's all irrelevant? (At least as we understand it) What if salvation is universal, meaning God is powerful enough to save all His children, even to the extent of changing the minds of those who simply wish to have it all over upon physical death?
How would we treat and respect one another if we realized that we and everyone around us were saved? You could not look down on others, or feel that God elliminating them would provide any solution whatever.
BP8,
I'm sorry, but you are cherry picking. None of the rationales offered here for making parts of the Law obligatory are consistent with the Scriptural view of that body of legislation as a whole. As Scout has pointed out, the responsibility of stoning Sabbath breakers and those who were disrespectful toward their parents was given to the community as a whole. Likewise, sacrifices required the participation of both the individual and the priest. Once again, parsing responsibilities does not provide us with a legitimate rationale for accepting some provisions and rejecting others. You simply cannot make this work!
Moreover, the use of the Greek word "ginomai" in Matthew 5:18 nails down the sense of the whole passage. ESV translates the verse as "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." NLT reads: "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. Likewise, if we look at Strong's and Blue Letter Bible, we see that the sense of Jesus having fully performed what was expected is consistent with this Greek word.
LTW,
I'm not sure what you mean by Tkachism. I am not (nor have I ever been) a member of Grace Communion, and I am not in agreement with all of his theology (although I do think that he was closer to the truth and more sincere than HWA). Once again, I have never advocated/promoted "complete abrogationism." Moreover, I have always believed that "real" Christians will act in a moral way - internalizing the principle of seeing ALL behaviors through the lens of LOVE. Indeed, by echoing HWA's all or nothing attitude toward Scripture, and advocating the view that the Law can be separated into cultic or universal components or ethnic applicability, I believe that you are reinforcing these aspects of Herbie's theology. After all, my thesis is opposed to both of those notions.
Lonnie at 210
I'm not rejecting anything. I'm on record that I believe the law to be a monolith and in full force whether the specific conditions for its application exists or not.
Currently there is no functioning Theocratic rule, physical temple or priesthood, but in the Messianic kingdom, when all is RESTORED (Acts 3:19-21, Matt.19:28), the law will once again be executed from Zion in full force and authority (Isaiah 2:1-4). Multi-part man has documented this in great detail.
Jesus Christ has fully performed everything concerning His death, burial and resurrection (Luke 24:46), and upon His prophesied second coming "He will FINISH the work and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth" (Romans 9:28).
Now for Scout. Will you continue to misrepresent my comments? According to Acts 15:1, the Circumcision party taught the error,
"except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved".
I know you like playing that card, but you can search every comment I have ever made and will not find any that supports earning salvation by works or the law. What I HAVE SAID is the same as the apostle Paul, that " the law is good IF one uses it lawfully ". The role of law is not to give salvation. Period!
BP8 wrote, "Now for Scout. Will you continue to misrepresent my comments?"
I would like to retract for now the following statement I made at 1:57:
"In so doing, you have committed the error of the Circumcision Party whose machinations in the early church triggered the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15."
On reflection, I do not know what you and LTW believe about soteriology and I am not going to comb over past comments to find out. I am sure I will have the opportunity to revisit this in the future.
Scout
Scout:
“[D]iscontinuance of the Law of Moses and its replacement by the Law of Christ” is practically the textbook definition of “complete abrogationism” in a biblical context. A latter supposed scripture abrogating an earlier one, this earlier one being a complete Torah package.
Oy vey! The arguments both sides are making are so strong and convincing. That being the case, how could anyone be held accountable??? I think I'm going to just live by the Golden Rule, and let Jesus straighten it all out when He returns. That's what the church taught about the world's problems, so I guess we need to apply the same principle to church problems. I mean, I'm not just going to flip a coin.
Scout:
Think of it this way: If gun control people manage to get 2A repealed, but in order to do so, the new amendment repealing it has a much more limited RKBA (e.g., all I can “keep” is a .38 revolver in my house, and I cannot “bear” it outside the home, as opposed to my current arsena…, ur, “collection” and my carry permit — which state doesn’t even require), it is still an abrogation. The original amendment is being replaced, or at least some of it is being removed. That the new amendment has some features of the old does not change that. Abrogation has to do with the specific legislation, not the substance.
Yes, it is technical. But it is what your doctrine does.
To M/L at 1:34pm Aug 3:
Part 1:
1. “Neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek.”
A. Post-Mosaic reference, therefore subject to Deut 12:32-ch13. The Deuteronomy passages I’ve been citing really do answer it all.
B. In any case, it refers to all being in a single Body, not that they are all the same. Males and females are treated differently in Torah, yet it is not a “taking away.” Indeed, the same is true for NT (e.g., 1Tim3). Or you support same-sex marriage?
C. Deut 14:21 - Israelites and Gentiles under different proscriptions, and yet again, not a “taking away.” It’s actually in the document! And if there is one such distinction, there can be more. A lot more.
D. You won’t like this, but I will include it for the sake of some completion: Acts 15 acknowledges difference with Gentiles by specifically not pushing physical circumcision on them. Whether you view this as a Romans 14-type “each must decide if Gentiles are also required to get cut” expression of uncertainty on the matter, or a full-blown doctrinal statement that indeed that requirement does not apply to Gentiles, the concept of the distinction is upheld. To view it as an abolition or whatever of circumcision would be a direct Deut 4:1-2 violation (cf Acts 6:11-14, and think through how the businesses are described, and what they were saying).
(I have heard it suggested that it was simply a statement that while they technically should be physically circumcised, since it really didn’t affect Gentiles all that much, they really needn’t bother with it, and they simply had to just make sure their future sons had it done. This frankly seems pushing even the Tkachian “you can’t get doctrine from Acts” concept above and beyond. And in any case, such a reading would uphold the continuing requirement of physical circumcision – as well as put a lot of ‘Pauline theology’ through a wringer.)
CONT
To M/L at 1:34pm Aug 3:
Part 2:
2. My constitutional reference: It demonstrates from a present-day legal document how a singular document can indisputably treat different types of entities differently, yet it not be “taking away.” (Btw, you demonstrate you know nothing about constitutional law.)
And to indeed put a fine point on the matter: My position is that nothing changed in regard of the subject of our discussion due to the Christ event. As a man stood in 80BC in such regard, so he stood in 80AD. Behaviors you have pointed to in certain people that you claim represent the belief that some things were indeed abrogated or not carried through or whatever have been in fact judgments as to how to apply Torah in given situations and conditions. A substantially similar situation in 80BC would likely lead to a substantially similar result of application. The Christ event and the “New Covenant” are functionally immaterial in terms of raw physical performance regarding the pertinent divine law.
Read Psalm 119, remember it’s talking about OT alTorah.
3. You: “I have NOT advocated that Torah has been abrogated or nullified, just fulfilled.” Exactly the same thing. Exactly the same effect as you read and present it. I went through the Battle of 1995. Resurrecting that 30yo terminology play doesn’t work with me.
Btw, In Matt 5, “pleroo” = “fully preach,” as in Romans 15:19. And Jesus says there that nothing passes until ALL has come to pass. And according to your own NT, that hasn’t happened yet (Heb 9:27-28).
—-
Next part will answer your “Tkachism” post.
CONT
To M/L at 1:34pm Aug 3, but regarding 2:24pm same date:
4. “Tkachism”: Term used to describe the theology which “transformed” (Joe Jr’s term) WCG, most notably in and around 1995. There is hardly a whiff of daylight between your perspective and that used in 1995 in regard to the OT Law. You, and especially your friend Scout, positively exhibit Brinsmead-type approaches to the Bible.
You say you were never a GCI member. What about WCG? I would be curious as to how you came to be in contact with the Armstrongist/anti-Armstrongist community then.
Now, please correct your false statements about me and my position on this biblical matter.
To M/L at 1:34pm Aug 3:
ADDENDUM: A simple point that may explain it all:
The Israelite-Gentile distinction in Law duties is not “taking away” from what Gentiles are called upon to do, because Gentiles were never called upon to do certain things in the first place! Indeed, to say that they were/are called upon to do everything in the Law would be to “add to” the Law. And that is just as forbidden by Deut 4:1-2 and 12:32ff.
This is a sincere effort to make things clear.
Correction to 6:45 Aug 4:
“…Acts 6:11-14, and think through how the WITNESSES are described, and what they were saying).”
Lee T. Walker,
I was formerly a member of the Worldwide Church of God. I was disfellowshipped in 1985 for dating someone outside the church. It was one of the best things that ever happened to me - The epitome of the "blessing in disguise"! It forced me to reevaluate my religious beliefs and take a look at what folks outside of that tradition had to say about Scripture and Christian teachings. Hence, as I exited prior to Herbie's dirt nap, I was not a part of the Tkach transition. Two of the most important lessons I learned from that experience were: 1. God is so much more than anything Herbert Armstrong had ever imagined, and 2. Each of us can and should have our own very personal relationship with God (there is no person, group, or thing on this earth that can impose a "one size fits all" mentality on belief or conscience). In other words, God's reality, whatever that happens to be, is controlling! If God Almighty one day says to me, "Lonnie, you were wrong about this or that," my only response will be, "Yes, Lord, thank you for correcting me!"
The Holy Spirit does not control us. It inspires, leads, guides, helps, and sometimes even pushes us in the direction we should go; but we can (and do) sometimes resist the direction it would have us go! Hence, we should all approach these subjects with more humility than bravado or certainty. This is what I have learned from my experience of Armstrongism.
Having said all of that, it appears to me that we have failed to convince each other of our respective interpretations of Scripture on this matter. We are in good company. Folks have debated the Grace vs. Law issue since the First Century. You and I will be judged by God according to the dictates of our own consciences. If you or I believe that we have an obligation to do something, then we'd better be about the business of doing it! Likewise, if you or I believe that something is a sin, we'd both be well-advised to avoid that behavior!
I believe that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings of the Hebrew Scriptures, in both the letter and the spirit. I believe that he did that for us - for love of us and our benefit. I believe that God wants all of us to accept "his" Son and receive salvation through him, and I believe that God is capable of making that happen. Finally, I continue to believe that anyone who has accepted Christ and received God's Holy Spirit will be living as a new person in Christ - loving God with our whole heart and soul, and loving, encouraging, and supporting each other to the best of our ability. While we both acknowledge the importance of Torah to our faith, we obviously interpret its application to our Christian lives differently. I think that's a good place to leave the conversation. May God bless us on our journey and may we all continue to grow in grace and knowledge, Amen!
Anonymous 3:15 writes,
Oy vey! The arguments both sides are making are so strong and convincing. That being the case, how could anyone be held accountable??? I think I'm going to just live by the Golden Rule, and let Jesus straighten it all out when He returns. That's what the church taught about the world's problems, so I guess we need to apply the same principle to church problems. I mean, I'm not just going to flip a coin.
That is precisely the problem with the Protestant heresy and its false sola scriptura doctrine. No one can really know anything for sure.
One of the evil after-effects of this is feeling we have to wait for Jesus to "straighten it all out when He returns." That's no good because we are judged by our lives now, or more precisely, by whether we die in a state of friendship with God or not.
It seems absurd to think Jesus is coming back to reveal who among us has solved the majority of the divine puzzles he left for us to work on (and rewarding the winners), and then to share the correct answers with everyone else (giving them a consolation prize). It's as if life is about "studying" and figuring out the right theological conclusions that are evasive to most.
We are judged according to how we respond to divine revelation, which assumes we have it (rather than trying to reinvent the wheel with every generation or even person).
When is one side or the other going to finally arrive at "checkmate"?
LTW wrote, "Yes, it is technical. But it is what your doctrine does."
You know what I mean. Choose whatever word makes sense to you that reflects what I described.
Scout
LTW wrote, "You, and especially your friend Scout, positively exhibit Brinsmead-type approaches to the Bible."
No, the scope is broader than that. You speak of narrow aperature Armstrongism and Tkachism. Miller and I hold an orthdox Christian position held by most Christian theologians and millions of people over 20 centuries and you subscribe to something that, as near I can tell, only you believe. Maybe you are like HWA. "God" revealed this "precious knowledege" only to you.
I am not sure what you are. The last time I thought about it, I decided you were an atheist. I have been watching the Olympics and have not given if further consideration. So if I have misclassified you, that's what happens when you are not transparent.
Scout
So, 3:15, where in your opinion, does this divine revelation come from ? Do you think HWA experienced it? The Catholics or Pope? Does God speak directly to people today, or are they full of crap when they tell us He does or did?
You denied the term fit you. I demonstrated it absolutely did fit you. You were wrong.
To label anyone who does not believe in your Judeo-Christian tradition an “atheist” is quite narrow-minded and ignorant of you.
M/L:
Thank you for coming clean about your WCG connection.
I do hope you will expressly correct your previous false assertion that I argued for some degree of abrogation of OT Law. People honestly studying this matter and reading these comments here were no doubt, given a false impression, and thus handicapped in their examination and evaluation of the points I have made. You owe it to them to clear up for misconception.
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2024/08/does-book-of-deuteronomy-give-legalists.html
9:51 I guess when JC returns and the whole world will finally “see eye to eye.”
LTW wrote, "To label anyone who does not believe in your Judeo-Christian tradition an “atheist” is quite narrow-minded and ignorant of you."
OK. Tell us what you are. Why conceal it?
Scout
M/L posted this link: https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2024/08/does-book-of-deuteronomy-give-legalists.html
It is his attempt to counter my usage of Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 12:32-ch13; and 30:1-10 in defense of the OT Law against abrogationist theologies, such as his. You can look at his analysis, which I find to be simply him, citing a couple of NT passages and presuming himself right. But you be the judge.
Below is what I commented on that post (in two parts):
—
Oh, you make this way too easy.
In your quotations of the passages I have primarily used, you omitted what is arguably the most important: Chapter 13. You quoted 12:32, but stopped there. In our discussions on the other blog, I repeatedly cited it as “Deut 12:32-ch13” or occasionally as “12:32ff.” So there is no reason to fail to quote chapter 13.
Most English translations will place 12:32 as the introductory sentence to the paragraph starting chapter 13. In fact, Jewish translations simply refer to that verse as 13:1. A contextual reading makes thinking paragraphic lineup obvious.
Here is what you failed to quote (plus the 12:32 lead-in):
“Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it. If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall [b]put away the evil from your midst.” (NKJV)
—
CONTINUED
PART 2 of response to M/L’s blog link:
This is the continuation of what I posted on his blog:
—
So, a man comes along, claiming to be a prophet or some other such awesome thing. You yourself quote Deut 18:15 with its “PROPHET like Moses” as specifically applying to Jesus. This prophet gives signs and wonders WHICH ACTUALLY COME TO PASS. Maybe things like healing people, raising people from the dead, and at his prediction, he himself rising from the dead.
Wow! This guy sure sounds legitimate. He‘s got to be from God. Right? Well, there’s more:
In the context of all this, he says to follow a different god, one the people of Israel had not known before.
Uh oh. That sounds very bad. This supposed prophet starts leading the people away from the God of the Bible. He specifically tells them that follow a god they had not known before.
Hmm. Didn’t Jesus talk about “revealing the Father“ (John, 17:25-26).
Matthew 5:27 - Jesus: “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.“
Oh, so this “Father” can apparently only be known now through this sign-working prophet. he could not be known before. Interesting.
Now let’s go back to the introduction to that Deuteronomy passage. It is a warning against adding two or taking away from – wait for it – THE LAW! The commands and statutes and whatnot of what we call the Pentateuch, the books of Moses. (And yes, it includes the other four books. They are “incorporated by reference,” to use the legal term, in Deuteronomy 5:32 and elsewhere.)
So according to Christian abrogationist philosophy, we have a sign-working prophet (and sign-working apostles) effectively repealing OT commands (and even adding new commands) and talking about a “Father [god]” neither Israel nor the world had known before the prophet’s appearance.
Upshot: If abrogationists are correct about NT theology, then Jesus was and is a fraud.
The only way for Jesus to be legit for him to uphold the Law as operable commands from God. A serious educated Christian, therefore, must reject abrogationism and read the NT as requiring continued obedience to the OT Law.
I know there are questions. But those questions must be answered “pro-Law,” as it were. From a Christian perspective, think of it as Deuteronomy giving the context in which to take the statements of Jesus and his apostles. Read them in that context.
—
End of quote of my comment on his blog.
END
LTW
Which religion and which god do you represent and why are you reluctant to speak about it?
Scout
I worship the Creator and judge of the universe.
I gave up on religious dogmas and scriptures and messengers decades ago. There is no way to verify them, and when it comes to the first two, there is no way to know for sure you are understanding them exactly right.
If I misunderstand, say, the Constitution of the United States, the effect is not eternal. And any expressly human document can be rejected in part if reality breaks it. We even have a means of amending the Constitution! But with supposedly divine word, and given statement must be accepted and heeded, even if it is “obviously” wrong. That is the nature of holding something as “scripture.” (Well, at least it is supposed to be. Some folks around here just discard parts of their scriptures they don’t like.)
God can tell me directly anything I need to know from him. It’s like in court with the “best evidence rule.” You don’t use a deposition when the actual witness or litigant is available. God can appear to any of us anytime. (And no, Bones was wrong in Star Trek 5 — you CAN ask the Almighty for his ID, and it’s a good thing Kirk did. Small redemption for a generally bad movie, I agree.)
So I believe God exists (all those standard “proofs,” perhaps most notably, the fact that we are intelligent with mean that whatever made us must be intelligent). I presume God to be benevolent, because otherwise none of it matters. And so I seek to live benevolently – that is, with an outgoing positive community focus. Yes, that explains a lot of my generally Rightwing politics. It’s simply the context in which I live to be benevolent. And a benevolent God will reward his creation.
As for a Satan, I’ve seen enough weird things to know there is something beyond the natural. The nature of a Satan would involve concealing his true nature, and even existence. And so I don’t “ dogmatically” push out much proof of his existence, but if I’m wrong, and he actually doesn’t exist… Oh well. That’s the nature of a Satan.
So, the smple answer to your question:
- God exists, I presume him benevolent, and thus I seek to live benevolently in the context of reality. And if there is no Satan, things make even less sense in this world!
—
To answer an obvious question: I take part in these Judeo Christian scriptural discussions at this time for two reasons:
1. The heritage of my people is Christian-based, and those that contribute to our civil Deism.
2. It seems the best way to combat Armstrongism in the minds of Armstrongists. They won’t buy disregarding the Bible, and they for a good reason won’t buy abrogation.
LTW,
I am responding for the benefit of our readers. Your arguments are based on faulty hermeneutics. Instead of interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures through the Christ event, you claim that Christ and his teachings must be interpreted through the Hebrew Scriptures. In other words, you have things backwards. Jesus came to this earth to fulfill those Scriptures, NOT to abrogate them. Jesus obeyed the Law - the ONLY Israelite to ever do so. He was also the embodiment of God's character, the offerings and sacrifices, the Sabbath, the Festivals, the Priesthood, the Tabernacle/Temple, the Ark of the Covenant, etc.
Jesus did, however, make the Old Covenant with Israel obsolete. Moreover, having fulfilled its requirements, and by virtue of his being very God, he had the absolute authority to do so. Where Christ had succeeded, Israel had failed to follow the tenets of that covenant. As a consequence, God had divorced them; and Jesus had instituted a New Covenant.
Your hermeneutics fails to accommodate these facts. The Old Covenant was based on God's Law, but it was tailor-made for the people of Israel and their circumstances. You also continue to fail to account for the fact that all of the passages you quote make VERY CLEAR that this particular iteration of God's Law was addressed to the people of Israel - NOT to all of the peoples of the earth.
continued below
By all means, lets continue into the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, it supports my thesis! You quoted: "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it" Who was he commanding? The people of Israel! You continued: "If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, SAYING, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." Jesus Christ NEVER told the Jews to "go after other gods...and let us serve them," and he served God throughout his ministry. As Christ pointed out, these Jews had never truly understood or obeyed the God whom they professed to serve. Indeed, they insisted on having a buffer to mediate between them and their God! Again, Jesus wasn't trying to entice anyone away from obeying and serving God. His purpose was to reconcile them to the God whom they had alienated themselves from by their rejection of his covenant with them!
Finally, just as Torah was comprehended by the Two Great Commandments which Christ referenced during his earthly ministry, the Law of Christ is likewise based on those commandments. In other words, the Law of God stands inviolable and has been made to apply to both Gentiles and Jews. Hence, Jesus is the real deal. No fraud. You present our readers with a FALSE DILEMMA. You are effectively saying: "If you don't accept my interpretation, Jesus was a fraud." Be very careful, you are danger close to blasphemy and an Anti-Christ perspective. You are unwittingly espousing the very reasoning which the Jews have employed to reject Jesus as the Christ!
Scout,
Thank you for prying behind the curtain. Now, everything is clear, and LTW is exposed! Thank you, at least, for your honesty Lee.
N/L said: “Instead of interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures through the Christ event, you claim that Christ and his teachings must be interpreted through the Hebrew Scriptures.”
Yes! Abso-freakin’-lutely! My approach follows the logical order – that God doesn’t disagree with God – and goes to proving that this Jesus guy was what he is proclaimed to be. Your approach simply assumes that this guy and his followers were telling the truth and were indeed what they claimed to be, even if it has God disagreeing with God, and then reads everything else based on that assumption. You could fall for anything that way, and any crazy teacher – including a perverted former ad man – could pass that test.
You said above that Jesus was the only Israelite to actually obey the Law. Well, according to you, he VIOLATED those Deuteronomic passages. Remember one of the big pro-Law lines from 1995: Those opposing Tkach noted that Jesus was still “under the law” (cf NT Galatians 4:4) when he made statements like Matt 5:17-20. He couldn’t say what you claim he said without sinning. And remember, no special accommodation for him, or else he was not, as your own NT says, “in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15).
(When that point was made back in 1995, it really did throw Tkach and company for a loop. WCG scrambled in some backtracking. They were down to basically saying that Jesus simply “said some very negative things about the Law.” The Messiah saying negative things about the Word of his God? It was hilarious.)
The passage, which you inexplicably(?) failed to quote or even discuss, precludes the possibility of someone fulfilling the Deuteronomy 18:15 prophecy you yourself cited if he taught as you claim the NT does. he would not be a “prophet like Moses.” He would not be a true prophet at all.
Hmm. Did that have anything to do with you omitting it?
COG Catholic,
You may want to check out Vance Stinson's latest sermon. It is largely a reaction to your comments: https://www.cgi.org/media-app-1?sapurl=LytxNWdtL2xiL21pLyt3djdjOHA0P2VtYmVkPXRydWUmcmVjZW50Um91dGU9YXBwLndlYi1hcHAubGlicmFyeS5saXN0JnJlY2VudFJvdXRlU2x1Zz0lMkI2aGh6NTV0
LTW 8:47
My beliefs:
1. God is the uncaused first cause and by creation is absolute.
2. God is benevolent.
3. An absolute, benevolent God will send us a message and that message is the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.
I believe the message in point 3 is incarnational, that is it was plunged into human conditions for curation just as God himself emptied himself and became incarnate and partook of our weakness.
Does BP8 know that you don't believe in the Bible?
Scout
Oh, and something about repeated statement that Torah was only directed at Israelites: Remember my point about Gentiles not being covered by certain specific commands? Well, you’re endorsing it. So no more claiming that view I am espousing actually does “take away” from the Law. (Still waiting on your formal correction on that.)
Gentiles under Noachide; Israelites (or just Jews, depending on your take on Jeremiah 3) under full Torah.
Remember, Hebrews was written to HEBREWS. The audience was not primarily Gentile. You can do some play on that. You can drop abrogationism, shift your take on Heb 8:7ff’s citing of the Jeremiah “New Covenant” passage to square with Deut 30:1-10 – even give a sop to your opponents by reading Heb 4:9 as referring to a literal sabbath day – and yet keep the vast majority of Christians from having to do Leviticus 23 and Leviticus 11.
You’re halfway there, and you’ve already lost your supposed silver bullet against me.
PS: Do tell why you omitted Deuteronomy 13.
LTW,
One more thing, for the record, I studied Constitutional Law in College. My majors were history and political science.
I have thoroughly discredited LTW's rationale, and he has been exposed as a charlatan who doesn't even believe in the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. He obviously believes himself to be intelligent and in charge of the facts. I'm happy to let our readers form their own conclusions about the validity of his beliefs.
Scout asks if Bp8 knows?
I have been following the exchange between Lee, Scout and LH and it has been tough trying to determine what is factual, satire or sarcasm.
It seems to me Lee has invested way too much thought on scripture to not believe in scripture. Does that make sense?
LTW
What you are saying, I think, is that you worship the Creator of the Universe (Genesis) who provided a static, eternally valid Law that cannot be changed. For this reason, a New Testament that asserts changes in the Law cannot be valid. And what this means is that Jesus (“the Jesus guy”) cannot be God or the Messiah. When the Messiah comes, we will expect him to be a replica of Moses in ideology, because the Law cannot change. This then is an exaltation of the Elohim as a singular God (unitarian) and the Old Testament body of legislation as the only Law. It is a denial of Jesus and the New Testament brought by Jesus. (Jesus is credentialed principally by the New Testament that quotes Christotelic scriptures from the Old Testament.)
This is not a stroke of brilliance but is, rather, a cliché. The Gnostics and Ebionites believed something very similar. Some groups even believed there was a higher god above Yahweh and relegated Yahweh to the status of a demiurge. I cite these ancient religions because I know of no modern religions that have beliefs similar to yours. Your beliefs resemble modern Deism except that if you were a Deist you would not be finding cause in Deuteronomy.
The point at which you depart from God is not the Law of Moses but in the Doctrine of God. You do not believe in the in “the guy Jesus” and, hence, do not believe in the New Testament part of the Bible. So, any arguments that Christians who participate in this blog use from the New Testament, would not have traction with you. Your redoubt is found in the changeless Law of Moses. (You do cite Deuteronomy although somewhere you said you thought the Bible was invalid or something like that.) Christians would conclude that you have made an idol of the Law of Moses. As you see it, I would guess, the Law derives from the eternal God and therefore is itself eternal. Your eternal god and his eternal law, then, exist in holy and inviolate isolation from the New Testament, Armstrongism and Christianity. And this god and his law are not challenged by Jesus Christ.
I do not believe that I or any Christian, here I am going out on a limb, can prove to you that Jesus is God without resorting to the New Testament. But neither can you demonstrate that what you believe is the truth to Christians. The game of one-upmanship does not work. You have omitted one central fact in your calculus and that is the effect of the Holy Spirit. Christianity involves millions of people over 2 millennia and the denominational theologies are relatively consistent. What you believe cannot be described in any other way except as a “one-off”. My guess is that you dislike Christianity as much as you dislike Armstrongism.
I may have misunderstood your position. It is assembled from fragments. But this is my best guess.
Scout
Lonnie:
You may want to check out Vance Stinson's latest sermon. It is largely a reaction to your comments...
Yes, thank you. I listened to it very early yesterday morning (Monday). I thought he'd bring up some points and respond to them, but I didn't figure he'd take the whole time. He gets an A for effort.
-----
BTW, how do you keep up with all these threads? Do you scan all the comments on all these posts every day forever? Do you subscribe to all the comments (RSS)? It's just dumb luck that I even saw your comment here.
(To see your answer, I will have to remember to keep checking this post's comments!)
LTW is unable to post from usual device due to technical difficulty. Will hopefully post within the next day or two.
You're welcome. I like Vance, but he is still fully within the Armstrongist tradition (although his position is smarter and more nuanced than Bill's). And, yes, I too was looking forward to a stronger defense of his position, but I found it to be more of the same. For the record, although we disagree, I think that Catholic position is more theologically and logically consistent than what he is espousing.
I usually monitor my posts for about a week after they are posted, after that I move on to bigger and better things. Of course, I'm a regular here and on some of the ACOG websites. Likewise, you are always welcome to post a comment on my own blog. Your comments are appreciated - even when we disagree.
THIS IS FROM LTW
—
Multiparty message:
M/L: An entity cannot bear witness of itself. The NT cannot prove itself against contrary OT passages. You still need to correct your mischaracterization of my positions.
Scout: You claim the Bible has human flaws in it. You simply cherry pick what you like, and declare anything you don’t like one of those flaws. Btw, that is a very weak god you have can’t even preserve is scriptures intact. (And see John 10:35b). Gut feelings are not proof of anything, certainly not something this serious (Jer 17:9).
BP8: I remember most of that Bible stuff from the Battle of 1995 and years following. I deal with it as part of combating the Armstrongism cult tradition. My debate with your other two colleagues on here is, I must confess, heavily a reaction to remembering just how ridiculous the Tkach theology was back then. Guess the old fighting spirit came back.
Tactical advice to BP8: They can’t defeat those Deuteronomic passages I often use. Especially ch 12:32 continuing into chapter 13. M/L even hid ch 13 from readers of his own blog. And when he goes into supposed problems with continued OT Law adherence, or claiming that working out new approach is to it constitutes “adding,” point out that most of those problems would’ve been factors even in OT times. Those people had to sort out how to do things, especially in unusual situations. It can be done and be in accord with the Law. E.g., Paul applied OT Law in how to treat the Jewish authorities in their innovated form (Acts 23:1-5).
-
As for my own personal faith: I have said elsewhere that I gave up on dogma and writings, because they are simply unverifiable. People have had “faith” in a lot of things that turned out to be totally false. God exists, he’s a good guy, so I wanna be a good guy. (And the HAS to be a Devil somewhere!) It really is about that simple. And if one of these dogmas or religions turns out to be right, I simply point out to God that he never came to me and told me. “Best evidence rule” and Jeremiah 17:9 (if God is Judeo Christian).
I won’t post a direct link in case there’s a problem with the moderators, but I leave you to check out my latest post as of this writing on my own world-renounCed blog. It is a non-political, non-religious, and hopefully non-controversial piece of juvenile entertainment.
I can be contacted on my TruthSocial account, which is given on my blog.
Have fun with your talk, you all.
Apparently, I wasn't signed in when I posted Tuesday, August 6, 2024 at 7:37:32 AM PDT. It was me!
LTW wrote, "It really is about that simple. And if one of these dogmas or religions turns out to be right, I simply point out to God that he never came to me and told me."
That is LTW in a nutshell. I am pretty much happy to leave it at that.
Scout
Anon, Tuesday, August 6, 2024 at 9:08:31 AM PDT
, wrote:
"...As for my own personal faith: I have said elsewhere that I gave up on dogma and writings, because they are simply unverifiable. People have had “faith” in a lot of things that turned out to be totally false. God exists, he’s a good guy, so I wanna be a good guy. (And the HAS to be a Devil somewhere!) It really is about that simple. And if one of these dogmas or religions turns out to be right, I simply point out to God that he never came to me and told me. “Best evidence rule” and Jeremiah 17:9 (if God is Judeo Christian)..."
******
That's a fine way to look at things, and...
Time will tell...
John
John 5:18 wrote, "That's a fine way to look at things..."
I don’t think so. I don’t know what your background is. Maybe you and LTW are birds of a feather. LTW is espousing the Judaic viewpoint. He believes in the Law of Moses, and does not believe in Christ or the New Testament. I doubt he is a Jew with a name like Walker but then that may not be his real name. He believes there is a God through the standard arguments in support of Theism. But it is odd that he connects a generic theistic viewpoint to the specific Law of Moses. That is a leap of belief that seems to have no rational support except it may be related to family and culture. Believing in the Law of Moses is no less a matter of personal faith than believing in Christianity.
He is strongly opposed to the Christian idea that he Law of Moses is obsolete. And that is understandable. If the Law of Moses is obsolete, he is left without a belief system. But his being enamored of the Law of Moses does not place him in the Armstrongist camp. It is the case of the same error coming out or two different backgrounds.
While his commitment is to something that is as admirable as the Law of Moses, his viewpoint is that of a person who has not been called by God to a Christian walk. I believe the early church encountered many such people, principally from the Jewish community.
Scout
In Genesis we read God rested & there is no record of man doing so. This God did on his own. In Noah's time no mention is made of sabbath. When in Abraham's time likewise no mention it merely says he obeyed God's commands of which we can read.
Certain churches like this verse as some alleged proof of sabbath before Mt Sinai when it is not it would seem.
Scout, Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 6:33:00 AM PDT, wrote:
[[John 5:18 wrote, "That's a fine way to look at things..."
I don’t think so. I don’t know what your background is. Maybe you and LTW are birds of a feather...]]
******
Scout, why did you speculate that I and "...LTW are birds of a feather?" Is it just because neither of us thinks exactly like you do, and you don't like that?
I did not blame/judge LTW for those words that he wrote saying: "...As for my own personal faith: I have said elsewhere that I gave up on dogma and writings, because they are simply unverifiable. People have had “faith” in a lot of things that turned out to be totally false. God exists, he’s a good guy, so I wanna be a good guy. (And the HAS to be a Devil somewhere!) It really is about that simple. And if one of these dogmas or religions turns out to be right, I simply point out to God that he never came to me and told me. “Best evidence rule” and Jeremiah 17:9 (if God is Judeo Christian)..."
My words saying, "That's a fine way to look at things," indicated to LTW that I was not blaming/judging him for what he wrote. So what, that he had a different viewpoint than you have? Is he hurting anyone?
Today, God is not imposing His law on humanity. So, why should we? Everyone is unique and each has his/her own ways of looking at things. It's allowed. God is not imposing His way upon humanity at this time. So, from my perspective, LTW has "a fine way to look at things." That is all I intended to say. Besides, I suspect that over time his views will become modified from what they are today. Time will tell.
You also wrote: [[...While his commitment is to something that is as admirable as the Law of Moses, his viewpoint is that of a person who has not been called by God to a Christian walk. I believe the early church encountered many such people, principally from the Jewish community...]]
How do you really know that LTW has "not been called by God to a Christian walk?" To be a Christian one is to be Christ-like. What means that? And there are no perfect people living on earth today, including those told to: "be ye therefore perfect."
What did you mean: "called by God?" Did you mean like in Saul's situation?
"As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." Acts 13:2
And to be Christ-like, would that include a fulfillment of the following words in an individual's life, where one is drawn, or dragged, to Jesus by His Father, His God?
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44
And if LTW weren't called/dragged to Jesus, then is there any "hope" for him and any "birds of a feather" like him?
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me." John 12:32
That sounds like a nice deal! Is God love? Is anyone going to be left out? Well, Satan and his angels will eventually be taken and destroyed, but besides them things?
So, I thought LTW had a decent attitude about what he wrote about regarding the way he looked at things.
Will LTW, like you, be called/dragged by God?
Time will tell...
John
Post a Comment