Olam: it’s so far that we can’t see the end.
Olam and the Seventh Day
By Scout
Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual (olam, Hebrew) covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever (olam, Hebrew): for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (KJV, Exodus 31:16-17)
I have said that God made the Sabbath a SEPARATE, ETERNAL, and PERPETUAL COVENANT, entirely separate and apart from what we term "the Old Covenant" made at Mt. Sinai ― Herbert W. Armstrong in his booklet “Which Day is the Christian Sabbath,” 1972.
“Olam and the Seventh-day” sounds like a Disney movie about a Hebrew boy named Olam who learns about the seventh-day Sabbath. But “olam” is, rather, a term in Hebrew that usually means “a long time” but can mean “eternity”. The KJV translators seem to have made facile decisions about how to translate olam in the Old Testament. I know of no documented, substantive exegesis concerning how they arrived at the decision to translate olam in its various usages in the Biblical text.
In my examination of this issue, I will be relying extensively on the work of Dr. Eitan Bar who is an Israeli Jew and also a Christian and a graduate of the Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Bar has a valuable word study of olam in his book titled, “Hellfire Deconstructed.”
Briefly, How the Old Testament Views Eternity
Eternity seems to be one of the leitmotifs of the Old Testament. One gets the feeling of infinite duration as some scriptures are read. If you get that feeling, the translators have probably misled you. Dr. Eiten Bar wrote:
“One of the risks in interpreting an ancient Jewish Middle Eastern text—the Bible—from a Western perspective is the anachronism fallacy, which involves injecting modern ideas into the ancient text. This issue becomes particularly apparent when considering the concept of time. In Western philosophy, eternity is a subject of extensive debate, but the concept, as understood today, essentially does not exist in the Near Eastern biblical context.”
The idea of infinite duration imposed on the ancient Hebrew language of the Old Testament creates an anachronism. It is like Shakespeare writing of a striking clock in the play “Julius Caesar” when the mechanical striking clock was not invented until the Middle Ages. The Hebrew term “olam,” which is often translated anachronistically as forever or everlasting, much later concepts, really just means something like “hidden” or “not visible” in the sense that it is beyond sight. It means something that lasts so long or extends so far, for instance, that we cannot see the end of it from where we stand. It does not rule out that it is finite or will one day end. There are many Biblical examples of something that is olam and is of finite duration. In Jeremiah 5:29, olam refers to a period of 70 years. This issue of semantics has a direct impact on how Exodus 31:16-17, concerning the seventh-day, is interpreted.
So, if you are reading the Old Testament and the text is laced with references to eternity, consider that your expansive mood may stem from the wrong impression, that the term olam for the most part does not mean eternity. And it is time to read more deeply.
A Reassessment of the Seventh-Day Sabbath Covenant Text
When the Sabbath Covenant of Exodus 31 is reviewed in light of the equivocal meaning of olam, the Covenant might be eternal or it might not be. While olam refers to a finite but long duration, the term olam can also be used to mean “eternal” in at least one place in the Old Testament. God is referred to as El Olam or the Eternal God. Clearly, there is no finitude or possibility of a distant future ending possible in this usage. So, how do we figure out what Olam means? Olam means “a long time” or “eternity” depending on context. So, we must look at the context.
Exodus 31 does not stand by itself. In fact, nothing in the Old Testament stands by itself. It is all under the authority of the New Testament. This is because Jesus himself is the Word of God. The Old Testament is not superior to Jesus. It is absurd to think that Jesus was just another Torah-keeper, that the law is at the center and Jesus is peripheral. This profound transition from the Old to the New Testament is described by the Apostle John when he said, “The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” Notice that Jesus brought not only grace but the truth. Jesus brought us the true state of reality. This is one reason that the teachings of the New Testament may legitimately modify the Old Testament.
We must reassess the seventh-day Sabbath covenant in Exodus 31. To do this, we must see it in the context of the New Testament. Prominent in any such review will be the Jerusalem Council’s conclusions. Prominent will be the model of circumcision and how circumcision was transformed. This will inevitably lead us to the conclusion that the Sabbath is still in force. It is eternal just as Exodus 31 states. But our rest is not in the seventh-day but in Jesus. The line of reasoning follows.
The New Testament Rest is Not the Seventh-Day
It is important to understand that the concept of the seventh-day and the Sabbath are separate. We know this from the New Testament. The word Sabbath in Hebrew does not mean seventh-day or the number seven. It means a deliberate cessation of activity, therefore, implying rest. God implemented the Sabbath by resting from creation on the seventh-day in the allegorical language of Genesis. (God does not need to rest in order to recharge like a human. But he did cease from a certain kind of activity.) So, only God can re-implement the Sabbath in a different way. Jesus said, “Come to me, all you who are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matthew 11:28-29, NRSV).” We now find our rest in Jesus. Notice this statement covers both physical and spiritual rest. Also, in this statement, Jesus separates spiritual rest from the seventh-day by making himself the new source of rest. The concept of rest is carried forward but the physical ritual of the seventh-day is set aside.
This change that makes Jesus our rest tells us the intent of the language of the Sabbath Covenant in Exodus in retrospect. It is important to again consider at this point that the seventh-day Sabbath, like circumcision, is a composite of a spiritual concept and a physical ritual. It is composed of both spiritual rest and the physical seventh-day observance. Olam in the Exodus 31 context does mean “eternal” but it is focused on the meaning of the Sabbath as spiritual rest rather than on the physical seventh-day. We would not know the intended usage of olam in Exodus 31 if we did not have New Testament events to refer to. It is safe to conclude that Moses did not know the full extent of what he was saying in Exodus 31 because he did not have access to New Testament revelation. So, the change Jesus made in how the rest is to happen through him asserts the meaning of olam as eternal in regard to spiritual rest only.
Let me hasten to add, that the observance of the seventh-day is not wrong. I am confident that prior to 70 AD, the Jerusalem Church observed the seventh-day and, perhaps, much of the Torah. Pauline theology and the Book of Hebrews is convincing that this observation must have been liturgical – a worship form. The seventh-day, like circumcision, only becomes a departure from Christianity if it is asserted that its observance is a requirement for salvation.
Conclusion
The Hebrew word olam because of its ambiguity is not by itself sufficient to decree that the seventh-day is the Sabbath for all of eternity as Herbert W. Armstrong states. One cannot cite the Sabbath Covenant in Exodus 13 as a means of settling all debate. One cannot approach the New Testament scripture with the eternity of the seventh-day observance in pocket as an already-decided issue because the New Testament has the final word. The covenant of circumcision was also described as eternal (olam) and ceased to be the cutting in the flesh in the Old Covenant and became a matter of the heart in the New Covenant. In regard to both circumcision and the seventh-day, the spiritual meaning has been retained but the former physical implementation has ended. This is because the New Testament gives completed, present meaning to what was intended in the Old Testament. Jesus is the Word of God in action and the New Testament message that he brought to us supplants the Old Testament.
142 comments:
Because Acts 15 mentions the sabbath day, I went on the Bible Hub and asked, What does Acts 15:21 mean? Here's the answer:
FOR MOSES HAS BEEN PROCLAIMED
The name "Moses" stands for the entire Law God gave through him it is continually proclaimed. Luke previously recorded this pattern when Paul visited Antioch, Acts 13:15. Jesus spoke of the same living testimony, John 5:46. The Law is therefore an active witness, still pointing to righteousness and, ultimately, to Christ, Galatians 3:24.
IN EVERY CITY
Wherever Jewish communities settled, they carried the scrolls of Moses with them. Paul could locate a synagogue everywhere he visited (Acts 14:1, 17:1). This widespread presence means God had already prepared venues where Gentile believers could continue learning the moral truths embodied in the Law, even as salvation rests in grace through faith.
FROM ANCIENT TIMES
The practice of public reading began early (Deut.31:12) and continued on (Josh.8:34-35, 2 Kgs 23:2). This longevity underscores God's design: His word is enduring, unchanging, and meant for every generation (Psm 119:89).
AND IS READ IN THE SYNAGOGUES
Synagogues functioned as community centers of worship and instruction, as exemplified by Jesus and Paul (Luke 4:16, Acts 18:4). Because the Law is publicly read, Jewish believers remained continually shaped by it, and Gentile believers had access to it, without bearing the yoke of ceremonial requirements.
ON EVERY SABBATH
Weekly repetition engrains truth. Exodus 20:8-11 links the Sabbath rhythm to creation, showing God's intention for regular rest and reflection. By the first century, the Sabbath was the established time for hearing Moses, ensuring that ethical teachings, such as purity, sexual integrity, and honoring God alone, remained fresh before the people.
SUMMARY
Jame's statement affirms that God has already placed His Law within earshot of both Jew and Gentile. Because Moses is proclaimed everywhere, the council could lay only essential restrictions on Gentile converts, confident that ongoing synagogue readings would continue to instruct them in God's timeless moral standards.
This confirms my belief that the issue at hand in Acts 15 was not the Law's validity, value or role, but against the Jews attempt to make a salvation issue of it which threatened the truth of the Gospel. This is the context presented to us in verse 1 and resolved in verse 11. That is the context verses 5 and 24 should be interpreted by. The Galatian heresy deals with the SAME ISSUE and resolves it in the same manner (compare Gal. 5:4 with 2:16-21).
At a shopping mall, I was once tapped on the shoulder by the holy spirit since the Sabbath was approaching. Contrary to the position of this post, no Sabbath keeping means no salvation.
In nature, a baby animal separated from its parents is a death sentence. Likewise, humans need to be close to God in order to spiritually survive and not become demons themselves. Keeping the Sabbath is an important part of this.
“For Moses has been preached… and is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
Acts 15:21 is not about Gentiles learning Moses. It is about Jewish believers continuing to hear Moses, which explains why Gentiles needed to avoid blood and idolatry for the sake of unity. The council’s decision protects the gospel from legalism and protects fellowship from cultural conflict.
Acts 15:21 seems framed as if James is saying: “Gentiles will learn Moses’ moral law in synagogue.” But James is actually saying: “Jewish believers hear Moses every Sabbath, so Gentiles must avoid practices that deeply offend Jews.”
BibleHub’s commentary is trying to explain why James mentions Moses. It says: “Gentile believers had access to moral truths embodied in the Law.” This is not wrong, but it is not really the point of Acts 15. Acts 15 is not about moral instruction; it is about removing Torah as a salvation requirement and preserving unity.
BibleHub’s commentary is historically correct about synagogue practice, but it leans toward a moral‑law interpretation that as noted is not the main point of Acts 15. Moral‑law continuity, Sabbath as a positive rhythm, and Moses as ongoing moral instruction reflect a theological perspective but are not James’ purpose in the passage. This is why the commentary does not pick up the unity‑preservation logic that James is actually using.
James is not telling Gentiles to learn Moses; he is explaining why Jewish believers, who hear Moses every Sabbath, needed Gentiles to avoid certain practices for the sake of unity. Acts 15 is about removing Torah as a salvation requirement and preserving fellowship , not about moral instruction for Gentiles. The only “moral instruction” involved is that Gentiles should respect the sensitivities of Jewish believers shaped by Moses’ weekly reading.
The seventh-day, like circumcision, only becomes a departure from Christianity if it is asserted that its observance is a requirement for salvation.
- perhaps you did not read that portion of the Post? If value is found in sabbath to keep on the straight and narrow this is a good thing but not all feel that be needed to fight errant behaviour.
A third of the angels followed Satan, and God does not trust the remaining two thirds. Your casual approach was tried and did not work, hence all the holy days and Sabbaths to keep the angels and humans on track.
I thought i read in this article before the statement 'the New Testament surplants the Old Testament' but i may be mistaken as i cannot find it now, or it's been modified.
The N.T. does not replace the O.T. rarther, it fulfills and builds upon it. Together, they form an integrated story. The O.T. lays the foundation and prophesies the Messiah, while the N.T. reveals Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of those promises and establishes the new covenant. Fulfillment is not erasure.
Jesus stated in Matthew 5:17 that he came not to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill it.
The moral law of the O.T. (such as the Ten Commandments) remain foundational and have been amplified by Jesus repeatedly in the N.T.
It is vital to remember the seventh day sabbath was 1. blessed by God in Genesis 2 and it was 2. sanctified, set apart by God.
God himself observed this day which is rarther important.
The Bible Project people currently have a new superb teaching video on the Sabbath and why it is to be kept in 2026.
They also have a strong series on the Ten Commandments and the purpose of them and give people much to think about.
You are mistaking being baptised and receiving a downpayment of God's Holy spirit and the actions of being in a covenant with God with Sabbath observance.
943 (Scout, is this you)?
You say Acts 15 is about removing Torah as a salvation requirement? Technically speaking, Torah was never a requirement for salvation in either testament. The heretical teaching here was coming from those " certain men that came down from Judea, that certain sect of the Pharisees which believed (verses 1, 5)", whom were misguided legalists themselves.
You're right, unity was at stake. But I find no reason not to accept at face value what the Biblehub says about "Moses" and the sabbath, especially if, as the post says, the 7th day is not a departure from Christianity unless it's made into a requirement for salvation. As usual, the problem here is caused by MAN and not the Law! Please forgive the redundancy, but I try to point that out when ever the opportunity presents itself.
BP8 7:47 wrote, “FOR MOSES HAS BEEN PROCLAIMED…”
I agree with Anonymous 9:43 but would state it a little more strongly. The whole tenor of what happened at the Jerusalem Council has to do with a group of Pharisees who professed faith in Jesus and were trying to get new Christian converts to follow the Law of Moses as the pathway to salvation. They weaponized the Torah to counterwork the missionary effect of Paul and bar-Nabas and their message of faith and grace. And the Jerusalem Council members took a stand. James in verse 21 was not saying that the teaching of the Law of Moses in synagogues was a good thing. It was not taught in the synagogue as simply a good ethical code to follow. It was taught as the pathway to salvation. Judaism stood against Jesus as savior and still does.
James was saying that Christians needed to have a context in order to deal with the fact that Moses was being taught in the synagogues and they would inevitably come into contact with the Torah. There was this propaganda machine for Judaism in many communities. Gentiles might even mistakenly regard Judaism as something very similar to Christianity when it was not. So, the Jerusalem Council gave them that frame of reference.
The traditional Armstrongist argument is that verse 21 means that the Christian congregations started by Paul and bar-Nabus were already keeping the Torah (in the Armstrongist sense as the path to salvation) because of the missionary work of local synagogues, so there was no need for James to even mention keeping the Sabbath and the rest of the Torah. But if they were already keeping the Torah for salvation then why would the sect of the Pharisees be trying to sell that same idea to them.
Pauline theology and the Book of Hebrews drive the theme that they early Gentile churches were not observing the Torah and only the Jerusalem Churches may have been. The Jerusalem Council promulgated the full range of what the Gentiles needed to do. There was no undercover Torah-keeping not mentioned in Acts 15.
Scout
BP8 - not me but I am in substantive agreement with it.
Only noticed this in the article now: "It is important to understand that the concept of the seventh-day and sabbath are seperate."
I'm sorry but I think this idea is very wrong as the hebrew names for Sunday to Friday are numbered in hebrew, yet the seventh day is not called the 'seventh day' in hebrew but the 'shabbat day of rest'.
This is a straightforward and perhaps basic argument but one that shows the opposite to your argument: the seventh-day and Sabbath are very much combined together, like a marriage covenant.
The 7th day is as the millennium and the millennium as the 7th day - Rev 20; 2 Peter 3:8.
Anonymous 11:34 wrote, “The N.T. does not replace the O.T. rather, it fulfills and builds upon it.”
If that sound-bite were actually believed, Armstrongists would be keeping all the Torah and they do not. (Armstrongists actually exclude the sacrifices and the ministration of death.) When was the last time you heard of a man in your church avoiding sleeping in the same bed with his wife during her menstruation because she is unclean? Do women in your church go to Sabbath services and shake hands with other people during menstruation thus transferring uncleanness to them?
The Torah and the Law of Christ are both inspired by God so that there are naturally portions of them that are the same. The Ten Commandments, for instance. This is unavoidable and who would want to avoid it? But the Jerusalem Council itself tells us they are not the same in their overall meaning and practice. And it is not a “build upon” but a “replace.” The writer of Hebrews, in writing about the Law (verses 1 and 16), says “he does away with the first in order to establish the second” using the sacrifices as an example of this principle. In Romans 7:4 it says we are “dead” specifically to the Law.
My two cents…
Scout
Anonymous 2:10 wrote, "This is a straightforward and perhaps basic argument but one that shows the opposite to your argument: the seventh-day and Sabbath are very much combined together, like a marriage covenant."
If that is true, then why did Jesus declare himself the replacement for the Sabbath rest in Matthew 11:28-29? There is a clear bifurcation here between the spiritual rest and the physical seventh-day. Once Jesus removed the spiritual portion of the Sabbath, the seventh-day just became another day of the week. And this was the groundwork for Paul teaching that you could pick any day of the week for worship in Romans 14:5.
Scout
My point is a simple one. Maybe I dressed it up too much. If olam does not mean "eternal" without exception and incontrovertibly, then the putative Sabbath Covenant of Exodus does not establish the Sabbath for eternity as a separate covenant. This means that the Sabbath is just like all the other laws of the Torah. In the New Testament the laws of the Old Testament may be carried forward or abrogated or transformed. It depends on what Jesus does with them. Jesus fulfilled all of them. But what happens to them after fulfillment is matter of diligent exegetical work for the church. The Ten Commandments did not go away because Jesus fulfilled them. But dietary laws did. Physical circumcision did.
And the Torah is not the foundation on which the Law of Christ is built. The Torah is a cohesive block of legislation. James says that it is so integrated that if you break one of the laws, you break all of them. It must go away as a block and be replaced by a new legal package in toto. This is the message of the Book of Hebrews. This does not rule out similarities between the two packages.
Scout
Thank you Scout. I agree with your two cents worth. The Law was but a tutor to bring us to Christ and now He has come there is no need for a tutor. Simple clear and to the point….but…….the Armstrong crowd cry out. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness, and that while uncircumcised and before Sinai. So indeed we are saved by grace and that through faith….and if we are of the faith of Abraham we are his descendants……we are called with a holy calling, not of works but by His purpose and grace….Acts spells it our well in chapter 15. Good points, thanks Scout.
7:59 wrote “ The Law was but a tutor to bring us to Christ and now He has come there is no need for a tutor.” I remember when this was first pointed out and it was like a lightbulb going off. Legalism died and easy death at that moment!
God blessed the Sabbath and then sanctified it and then observed it himself.
You seem to like to confuse the covenants with the laws, muddle them all together. The ritual and sacrificial laws you muddle with the moral laws.
Scout wrote: The Torah is a cohesive block of legislation.
How cold and calculating a sound-bite from a "Scout". What do you really scout about for ? Others crowns? To try and ruin others faith and ultimatley their lives?
No it is not, the Torah is sacred teaching, with the origins of humanity. Foundational text of belief. It's to be held, as all scripture is in highest reverence. It is divine wisdom from God, a souce of life and the ultimate guide for aligning one's heart and actions with God"s will.
Agree 2:13.
Anonymous 11:04 wrote, "You seem to like to confuse the covenants with the laws, muddle them all together."
I believe that the covenants are agreements about what behavior God expects and many other concerns. The Old Covenant includes an understanding about the Torah. The New Covenant includes an understanding about the Law of Christ.
GTA used to accuse Christianity of not recognizing that both covenants were an agreement about the Torah. That the first covenant had lapsed but the Torah had not. Strong words for someone who did not keep Torah. Your criticism reminds me of a rote echo of GTA.
What I have written aligns with the distinction between covenant and law. Would you like to show me where it is muddled?
Scout
Anonymous 11:19 wrote, “No it is not, the Torah is sacred teaching, with the origins of humanity.”
The Torah was a behavioral standard given to a certain group of people at a certain time in their history. It is the charter for running a nation. It is a cohesive block of legislation. It is bounded by time, place and parties to the agreement. If it were diffuse and not cohesive, the author of Hebrews could not have stated, “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” Clearly, to him the law had definition.
Both the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ reflect God’s will. And God may change the Law at will. No litany of “mom and apple pie” statements about the Torah can alter this reality.
Scout
Scout has raised so many points of contention that I am not sure I can address them all today. The wife is trying to keep me busy.
He writes, "in the NT the laws of the OT may be carried forward, abrogated or transferred. It depends on what JESUS DOES with them". With that in mind, he asks, " why did Jesus declare himself as the replacement of the sabbath rest in Mt.11:28-29"?
We have no indication that this is what He did. Why not? Because in the very next chapter to follow He is demonstrating His sabbath reforms and concludes with, "it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days", (Mt.12:12). So we are asked to believe he replaces it in chapter 11 then establishes it in chapter 12?
Scout says, " Judaism stood against Jesus as saviour and still does". True, which is why his example of lawful sabbath observance wasn't merely a reflection of his participation in Jewish culture or a hoop He had to jump through to satisfy the law's fulfillment.
Jesus was a minister of the NC and his ministry reflected that. When one makes his way through the gospels, they will find that Jesus didn't create a new package of laws or spiritualize away the old existing law. He revealed that which was always there, the spiritual principle behind the law already in place.
"You have heard that it is said . . .but I say unto you."
And, "except your righteousness exceeds" the standing culture . . .
Christ raised the Law to its highest standard, which includes the sabbath reforms, and brought to light the weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy and faith.
Scout is presenting a dilemma where we accept his teachings and example then reject them at the same time. That dog won't hunt. To reject his example and teachings on the grounds they were mere OC cultural compliances is a stretch. He was way ahead of that game. He had the holy spirit from birth. His doctrine and example was NC stuff. He didn't need to wear tassels or grow a beard to fulfill all righteousness. His life and walk in the spirit accomplished that (Romans 8:4).
While He was chided and persecuted for His departure from their culture (John 5:16-18, 9:14-16), He always stood fast in defense of the law's true meaning and rightful place in the life of the believer (Mt.12:12, 15:3, 23:23, Mark 2:27).
You can accept his example and teachings or not, but in Luke 6:46 a question is asked that everyone will have to deal with at some point:
"And why do you call me Lord, Lord and do not the things which I say"??? Obviously that would include what He says in Mt.12:12!
In the bible, the term "law" refers to different laws. People will believe what they want to believe.
Scout says, "the Torah is not the foundation on which the law of Christ is built"? Then what is? It seems to be when reading through the sermon on the mount. and in Paul's letter to the Corinthians (ch.5:1-8, 9:7-14). But once again I think we are missing the point of what is emphasized in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews concerning the plan of salvation. It's not about 2 packages of law, but 2 standings of " man".
The old man is contrasted with the new man. The one is not subject to law and therefore cannot please God, while the other serves and delights in the law. Your favorite prooftexts Mt. 11:28 actually brings this out. Where the spiritual rest Christ offers does not dismiss physical sabbath observance, it does directly affect the 2 covenants.
The OC was based on human self effort. The NC is based on faith in what God does. Hebrews 4:10 says this, "for he that is entered into his rest he also has ceased from his own works as God did". Verses 1and 10 are warnings to remain in the spiritual rest Christ gives and not to revert back to our carnal nature, our own works and trusting them for salvation. The Bible is full of these admonitions and in all them the law is not at fault. Yes, the new man is dead to the law, the old man has died, been buried, and raised to a new orientation, service, and relationship with the law (Rom.7:6).
Different packages of law solve nothing! " He takes away the first that he may establish the second" is about the 2 covenants, not 2 packages of law. Hebrews 10:10 says, "by the which (vs.9) we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all". This is NC stuff, not law stuff. The law is spoken of in 10:1 where it says the law (any law) is not able to make anyone PERFECT. This was the lesson of the young rich man in Matthew 19. You speak of a change in the law in Hebrews 7:12, but the context is a change in the PRIESTHOOD, not every whim we choose.
The new man doesn't frustrate over packages but serves and delights in all of God's law. He doesn't have to buy an ox, or build a treehouse to observe the feast, or yell unclean, unclean on certain occasions. Why? The intent, purpose and principle of the law has become part of his very orientation and nature, thus fulfilling God's new Covenant promises. Enough said.
What's garner ted got to do with anything? He is not my source.
Very well put BP8.
Scout also writes, " the 7th day just become another day, which was the ground work for Paul's teaching that you can pick any day of the week for worship (Romans 14:5).
That's a mouthful, especially for a set of Scripture (Rom.14) that can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and the biblical and historical accounts of the apostles observing the sabbath after the new covenant had been inaugurated. It is true that the NC Christian is not bound by place (Jerusalem), or time (Holy days), or sex (all THY males shall . . .) to worship God. We can worship Him 24 hours a day, 7 days a week!
In Exodus 31:12-13 we read, "speak unto the children of Israel saying, MY SABBATHS (whose sabbaths) shall you keep for it is a SIGN between me and you, that you may know that I AM THE LORD who sanctifies you."
The sabbath was not merely a ritual or sign of the OC, but THE SIGN that identified WHO THEIR GOD was, by name. For them, it was the sign and point of law that identified the TRUE GOD, which is probably why it's a part of the 10 commandments. Maybe that is still true today or maybe not. You can pick any day you want and try to force God to accommodate you, but Good luck with that. He is God, we are not!
The Torah is the first five books of the bible. Your response reads very dry, like a desert dry sunburnt land, with not a blade of grass or tree around.
Instead of trying to create rabbit trails, why don't you tell me where I have muddled things as you declare. Maybe I have. If so, I can fix it.
Scout
BP8 8:21 wrote, “Because in the very next chapter to follow He is demonstrating His sabbath reforms and concludes with, "it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days", (Mt.12:12). So we are asked to believe he replaces it in chapter 11 then establishes it in chapter 12?”
You have written a lot and I will try to hit the salient points. The account in chapter 11 happened during the ministry of Jesus. During this time, he was fulfilling the Law. After he fulfilled it, it became obsolete according to the author of Hebrews. He is not establishing the Sabbath but explaining what it always should have been under the Mosaic administration. Notice his audience was the Pharisees. He was not instructing Christians about what to do in the future but condemning the Pharisees for what they were doing in the present.
Scout
BP8 10:14 wrote, “Scout says, "the Torah is not the foundation on which the law of Christ is built"? Then what is?”
The foundation of both the Torah and the Law of Christ is the will of God. The Torah is not the launching pad for the Law of Christ. If it were, Paul would not have written this:
“But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are enslaved in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the written code. (NRSV, Romans 7:6)”
That does not sound to me like the Torah is just an early phase of the Law of Christ.
Scout
BP8 11:34 wrote, “The sabbath was not merely a ritual or sign of the OC, but THE SIGN that identified WHO THEIR GOD was, by name.”
I find that the Sabbath does this very thing for me. But it is not the seventh-day, but Jesus Christ.
Scout
Once again, the paradox of Armstrongism. HWA's followers are enamored of the Torah but do not keep it. They observe a lobotomized version of the Torah that was altered by the WCG church administration department. Much like the Rabbinic version created by Yohanan ben Zakkai.
Scout
If that is your opinion then you really need to leave UCG Pastorship. You are nothing more than a fake Pastor who seeks to do evil to Sabbath Christians.
"Scout" will forever be first to jump up in judging others as "not keeping.." yet is a paradox himself in behaviour not befitting a Christian.
You have comitted vile acts in actual church over the years, brazen and bold, and thought none had noticed.
Perhaps your condemning attitude should be turned on self.
He thinks we don’t know he is a minister. It’s time the church fire these guys.
There is no such thing as a Sabbath Covenant. The whole attitude towards the 613 laws is coming across as muddled, and somewhat robotic.it's somewhat difficult to explain.
The Torah is a more than the 613 laws. You claim Sabbatarians are legalistic but wrote about the Torah in such a manner.
The human reality of the Torah is being utterly ignored on this article. The Torah is a story of God trying to create new kinds of people who are fully able to love God and love others. The Torah shows God working with the terrible rebellious Israelites over generations.
Moses brought the Ten Commandments down the mountain, but the 613 laws were broken up and placed at stategic points in the story, over the five books of torah. After the golden calf rebellion Moses gave more laws. Then after Leviticus more laws after more rebellion. Numbers too.
Moses at the end of his life tells the Israelites he knows they won't follow all of God's laws and says the problem is their hearts and they need transformed hearts.
Again the pattern of God dealing with humans continues in the Prophets, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. Jesus spoke of the law and the prophets together.
The Old Covenant was for Israel's own benefit to make them wise and good and the categories of the law with it's rituals, customs, social justice, morality was to show other nations in the rest of the world what God is like.
To several of you:
The idea that I am a UCG minister is utterly facetious. That is all just a diversion because you cannot respond to the issues I raised. And I do not intend on giving you any clues about my identity. Sorry. What I wrote:
“Once again, the paradox of Armstrongism. HWA's followers are enamored of the Torah but do not keep it. They observe a lobotomized version of the Torah that was altered by the WCG church administration department.”
Let me give you an example. You try to stay on track and respond to it without diverting into ad hominem statements. Let’s see if you can do it.
The Torah says that you should make a brush arbor to stay in during the Feast of Tabernacles. This is associated with certain object lessons. Supposedly, this direct command is written on your hearts and is one of the criteria on which you salvation pivots. But the Armstrongist administrators have told you that it all right not to follow the Torah and stay in a plush hotel. You pay lip service to the Torah but your heart is with your denominational leaders. There are many other laws in the Torah that you do not keep. It is as if you have never read the Torah yet you naively defend it to justify your seventh-day observance.
It does not make any difference who I am. You need to respond directly to the issue.
Scout
Scout 405
You are always very difficult to engage because you are prone to make sweeping and outlandish statements that have little substance or verification as a rebuttal. You would make an excellent political spin doctor. 2 examples of this are:
You say, "after he (Christ) fulfilled it (the law) it became obsolete according to the author of Hebrews".
That's quite a sound bite. Just a sweeping statement with no substance. If you are referring to Hebrews 8:13 you will find, as I have pointed out many times before, that this refers to " the covenants", not packages of law. Read it again. You can't just change the wording of Scripture to suit your own purpose, although we all know many do that very thing.
You also write, "He (Christ) was NOT instructing Christians about what to do in the future". Really? So we throw out the sermon on the mount now?
This statement confirms a previous point I earlier made, that you have adopted a theology where Christians can ignore and dismiss the example and teachings of the founder of Christianity. You would do well to take another look at Luke 6:46-49 and who He is speaking to.
HWA used to make remarks such as, "Have you ever noticed that people are usually guilty of the very same thing that they accuse others of doing?"
Per HWA, I believe that these idiots who come here and accuse people of being subversive members of the ministry are probably ministers themselves! The fact that they repeat this accusation over and over and over indicates a level of frustration that they cannot adequately counter or disprove points that are being made. So, yeah. These accusers feel a need to bring it on, but this is all they've got! Just as pathetic as the disruptive kid sitting in the corner of the classroom, but at least the class clowns were occasionally amusing.
BP8 7:05, “You say, "after he (Christ) fulfilled it (the law) it became obsolete according to the author of Hebrews". That's quite a sound bite. Just a sweeping statement with no substance.”
No doubt it seemed that way because it is a sidebar to the main argument and I did not spend time with it. I believe that the Old Covenant and the Torah are parts of a single package. Just like the New Covenant and the Law of Christ are parts of a single package. (The Armstrongist view that I have heard GTA espouse is that the Torah is packaged with both the Old Covenant and New Covenant. While this view defends the Sabbath, it makes Armstrongists liable to keep the entire Torah.) So, when the author of Hebrews says that the first covenant is obsolete, the Torah rides with it. I can exegete this if you want. We could start with Hebrews 7:12 which says, “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” But, in short, this is the explanation for my statement.
You also raise the point, “You also write, "He (Christ) was NOT instructing Christians about what to do in the future". Really? So, we throw out the sermon on the mount now?”
Context, please. In the case of the Sabbath, Jesus was speaking to Pharisees who had corrupted the Torahic Sabbath. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is speaking to his followers. But I admit that the Sabbath case does not stand well alone. We can only understand it fully when we have Pauline theology to refer to.
Scout
My take......only laws given "under" or associated with the Levitical Priesthood have been removed, "of necessity" for the LP is no more. Laws given before Exodus 24 are not associated with the LP.
Ex 23:14-16 does not read ....3 seasons of 7 feasts. "Feasts" in Lev 23 is a mistranslation, should be "fixed, set, appointed times" which include the 3 feasts and sabbaths.
Israel will again live in tents (translated "tabernacles" in KJV - Hosea 12:9) during the feasts, not necessarily live in "brush arbors", but tree branches were taken to make booths, to rejoice.
Think not all laws in the Torah are now obsolete. Jesus did not say think not I've come to end the law but to end the law.
It would be nice if someone with the witness of God supporting them actually appeared and could tell us the real truth. There is too much man-made theory and confusion and no valid prophet, priest, King, scribe, or prophet to clear it up.
The posturing idiot teachers of Armstrongism are all nobodies going nowhere. In the Bible, God always made it known what humans He was supporting. There are no signs of that divine support amongst the purveyors of Armstrongism, just all manner of personal theories and opinions. That system restricts and controls but provides no enlightenment in return. Today it's more confusing than it ever was, because members can shop for the opinion they most agree with, and plow their tithes into that and then watch all the misspending.
In Matthew 12 the Pharisees, the religious leaders of the day who were full of lies, tried to accuse Jesus and his disciples over eating a handful of wild corn in a field.
Amongst Jesus reply he says: ' "Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath and are blameless?
...For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
Why didn't Jesus explain that the Sabbath was to be done away with ? It was an perfect situation to do so, in front of these religious leaders and his disciples ?
Instead Jesus confirmed the sabbath. Jesus validates the sabbath and declared himself Lord of the Sabbath day.
Jesus whilst on earth observed the Sabbath day but it is very important to notice here in Matthew 12, Jesus did not keep the sabbath in accordance to the Jewish leaders in their day, with their oral law and traditions because they had corrupted the Sabbath, but in accordance to the original Torah and God the Father and his own beliefs.
Also the Apostle Paul repeatedly kept the 7th day sabbath day.
1. In Antioch he preached on the sabbath day. Then the gentiles requested he return to preach the following sabbath.
2. In Thessalonia Paul went according to his regular practice to the synagogue for x3 consecutive Sabbaths to reason from the scriptures. Please notice he reasoned, not belittled, not insulted, not mocked, not tried to spiritually murder others but reasoned.
3. In Corinth Paul reasoned in the local synagogie every Sabbath for a whole year and a half.
Anonymous 11:50
There is nothing wrong with teaching on the Sabbath as reflected in the scriptures you cite. Paul had to do that because that was when his target audience congregated. There is a great leap from teaching on the Sabbath to believing that seventh-day Sabbath observance is a requirement for salvation. The Armstrongists believe in the latter and that is blatant heresy.
Scout
Anonymous 11:45 wrote, “Why didn't Jesus explain that the Sabbath was to be done away with ?”
Jesus “read the .” He actually knew what all the people who were hearing him were thinking. And he did not speak to the future, in this case, only the present. He was under the Law and so were his disciples and the Pharisees. Jesus spoke about Sabbath observance under those circumstances.
I have also used the “why didn’t he say something” argument in other contexts. It tends to be a weak argument.
Scout
Anonymous 2:40 wrote, “My take......only laws given "under" or associated with the Levitical Priesthood have been removed, "of necessity" for the LP is no more”
This raises an interesting issue. What is the Torah-keeping requirement? If Armstrongists believe that salvation pivots on the Torah being written on your heart and you must spend a lifetime qualifying for the Kingdom by following the stipulations of the Torah, why have they not developed an exhaustive manual for Torah observance? Why have they not carefully analyzed the 613 mitzvot and classified them as to commandment, judgement, statutes and civil laws?
Armstrongists need to get down to the serious business of creating an unequivocal modern church application for every principle contained in the Torah because salvation depends on it. They cannot drop laws from the Torah – they don’t have the authority to do that. And they are Biblical literalists so modifying laws violates that approach. It is one thing to argue that the Torah is written on your heart and quite another to actually do something about it.
My guess is that the Armstrongist devotion to the Torah is greatly overstated.
Scout
1145 and 1150
You both raise valid points. I reject the idea that Matthew 12 is just an example of Christ correcting the Pharisees corrupt practices. He did do that but that wasn't the point. On the very heels of His Matthew 11:28-29 statement we find in chapter 12 Jesus and his disciples minding their own business, and "went on the sabbath through the cornfields", verse 1. They were hungry and wanted something to eat. Verse 2 , " and when the Pharisees saw it", they began to accost and accuse them. This was just another real life day in the life of the saviour, and not a contrived situation to correct the Pharisees. What it does demonstrate is, after offering his spiritual rest to the poor and weary, He is still observing the physical sabbath day, not changing it.
One of the most revolutionary clarifications Christ made about the sabbath that most here refuse to engage is, why was the sabbath given in the first place? "The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath"! If it is mere ritual and ceremonial what good is it? Does " man" need rituals to perform and keep him busy, or hoops to jump through to keep him out of trouble? And, if Christ spiritualized away the sabbath and the 7th day is just another day of the week where we can pick any day we choose (which is not what Romans 14 is saying), then why did Paul wait for the sabbath days to come around in order to preach and teach the Gentiles in Acts 13:42-44, 17:2, and 18:4?
What the book of Acts shows and a fitting commentary on Christ's statement in Matthew 11 is, that years after all had been fulfilled by Christ and the new covenant had been inaugurated and in force, the apostles were still observing the sabbath days and dietary laws, which was far more than a cultural thing. If things had radically changed we would see those changes in the text and we do NOT. The Jerusalem conference doesn't change it nor the condemnations against using the law as a path to salvation. Instead we see Peter, years after the resurrection saying, "I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean", and his vision doesn't change that, for " God has shown me that I should call no MAN common or unclean", showing that the Gospel is about changing MAN, not food!
I realize that the prevailing conclusions drawn by this Sunday observing world differ from mine, but I am not concerned about the so called "orthodox" or majority opinion. There are more Christians on the planet that reject salvation by faith alone and accept infant baptism which I know rubs a lot of people the wrong way. That's just the way it is.
Scout 714 asks, "what is the Torah-keeping requirement"? and then states "Armstrongites need to get down to serious business of creating a modern church application for every principle contained in the Torah". I would say it has never been tried because it impossible to do, but I'm glad you bring this up for I think it is germane to the subject at hand.
Since the plan of salvation is about changing US and not LAW, we have a new focus, orientation, and relationship toward the law that the carnal mind cannot grasp. For the old man it's strictly an issue of obligation, do's and don'ts. For the new man it is newness of life.
The 613 points of Torah are but drops in the bucket compared to the will of God found in the principles derived from it. Consider this one example from the law of Moses given in 1 Corinthians 9 concerning the muzzling of an ox. Pertaining to the ox, this law still holds true. But it also applies in principle to the muzzling of a plow horse, a human employee, and those who preach the Gospel. In one brief line taken from the Torah we find a multitude of principles emerging from it, which could also be said for the other 612.
These spiritual principles of Torah cannot be codified even as the mind and nature of God cannot be exhausted. This is the fallacy of viewing the law strictly as duty and obligation. Even if we could know all the principles (we don't), knowing is not the same as doing. To attempt to create an exhaustive list is fool's gold and totally misses the meaning of what the law is and what salvation is about. Armstrong apparently didn't understand either!
No they do not. Is this the best debating trait you've got ? Comes across as immature. You seem to practise sophristry as a method of reasoning. It does you no favors.
I wrote from the heart i didn't think of manipulation choosing a 'Why didn't he say" argument.
I am genuinely shocked by your mean spirited responses.
I'm 11:45 & 11:50 ! I have far more on Matthew 12 but thanks for the comment. I needed to write more about Matthew 12 but i didn't get around to it.
I find the comments box quite restricting on this blog and the blog admin keep this blog articles going at quite a fast rate, they move on very fast, so if you take time to think about a response it can be too late.
I have far more scriptures relating to the sabbath to think about. Exodus 16. Isaiah 56 is an very important scripture that proves the sabbath was for gentiles not only the Israelites. It was not a jewish sabbath but God's sabbath.
Isaiah 58 is also important because the sabbath broke the yoke of slavery.
Luke 4:14 Hebrews 4:1 Colossians 2:16. To name but a few.
If 7th day sabbath and dietary laws are important for Christians today, the ACOGs have absolutely NOTHING to show for it- the emperor has no clothes.
Ronco
I believe these two should be seen as blessings from God, not yokes of bondage imposed by a taskmaster.
THY word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path (Psalms 119:105)
The entrance of THY words give light. It gives understanding to the simple
(119:130).
You can heed and use the light or ignore it and turn it off, but don't let the Armstrongs make the decision for you. Abuse doesn't cancel out use. A knife can cut both an apple and a throat.
Please point out Ronco who put forward the dietary laws aspecy in a debate on the sabbath ???
Not everyone observing Tabernacles stay in plush hotels. I would say in recent decades the 'plush' description would be difficult to apply. I have seen Tabernacle hotel venues, in recent years and considered the members staying in these alleged "plush hotels" to be martyrs for staying in them.
Outside of Pack's and Flurry's little fan groups, I very much doubt any leader alive, even Franks, Elliot and Western has the members hearts. At times I doubt they can even muster much trust.
What an illogical response 8:11. If it is followed through then no justice system can stand, no courts of law, no police or laws and we should empty all the prisons.
Herbert had as much to conceal as his youngest son, who took after him if truth be told. That remark is a high corrupt intimidation response designed to silence the members and give ministry total freedom and zero accountability. I once had a minister say it to my face years ago, a UCG minister lol. How ironic.
Anonymous 10:56
I can't respond to you issue without responding to your issue. I am not sure why you see my responses any meaner spirited than your responses. Maybe you can explain.
Scout
My comment lost a word. It should start with "Jesus read the room." My HP laptop messes up just about everything.
Scout
If you interpret the New Testament so that the seventh-day must be kept, you will necessarily bring the rest of the Torah along with it. Neither a jot nor tittle can be omitted. I do remember a guy in Big Sandy who purportedly had a paddle and would dig a hole in his backyard and defecate in it. But most Armstrongists do not take their love of the Torah nearly that far.
Paul said something very interesting about the Law in Galatians 5:3, “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” The principle is, you can’t just do part of it. It was given on Sinai as a whole and it operates as a whole. This makes sense because nobody but God an terminate any part of the Torah. The Torah is an integrated legislation and humans can’t futz with it. Both circumcision and the sacrifices were transformed from physical rituals into spiritual renditions and Armstrongists acknowledge this. But for those who follow the seventh-day interpretation, the entire remaining Torah is an obligation to be kept. It is and obligation now and an obligation on judgement day. If Armstrongists are going to follow that interpretation, they are way overdue to implement the full Torah throughout their congregations.
Scout
Digging holes with paddles? What obnoxious rubbish! and you expect people to change their beliefs on your writings. Seems two people are "Scout" at times.
The sabbath was not created at Sinai with Moses but in Genesis 2 the very next day after God created mankind. For the sabbath is for mankind, to help them.
"The sabbath was not created at Sinai with Moses but in Genesis 2"
I call BS on that one, the bible records no such command given to Adam, Noah, Jacob or anyone else till Sinai.
The Emperor has no clothes ? Isn't that the legacy of Tkachites? GCI have the fastest closing church organisation around. Whole congregations disapearing without trace. Turning HQ church into coffee shops.
Even the Tkachites supporters have to go through the mill of trying out different religious denominations over the years to find a 'church home'.
What does Tkachites have to show for attacking COG people? Bitterness ? Emotional wounds that won't heal? Uncontrollable anger? Hatred? Overwhelming desires to cause hurt to others? Mockers? What a life! Dwelling on about dead mens sins whilst hating others faith and basic existence, and blind to your own sins. That's so what Jesus told his followers to do...NOT!!!
The seventh day sabbath WAS recorded in holy scripture as being created in Genesis 2 by God.
The fact your having to lower yourself to swear in writing says alot.
Your apostacy is going nowhere.
Ronco 1108 says, "the Bible records no such COMMAND (sabbath) given to Adam, Noah, or anyone else till Siani".
Ronco must be a Tkachite! That's one of Joe's old arguments he borrowed from others, but doesn't hold water.
Since you are setting the criteria by which to judge the book of Genesis (COMMAND), where in Genesis is the command against adultery, stealing, or covetousness? Like the Sabbath they are implied but not commanded, because Genesis is not a book of commands like Exodus, but a book of "origins ", beginnings. The sabbath originates in Genesis and is introduced in the creation story by DIVINE EXAMPLE, not command.
Also, the sabbath by name is first introduced in Exodus 16 BEFORE the children of Israel reached Siani. Look it up. And in both Exodus 16 and 20 the sabbath is presented as an already EXISTING institution, not a new concept!
Compare Genesis 2:2-3 and Exodus 20:8-11 side by side and you'll get the point.
As Jesus said, " the sabbath was made for man" and as Genesis points out, it was the day after man was created. If it wasn't made for and understood by Adam and Eve you make Christ out to be a liar, which is not good!
Anonymous 9:51 wrote, “Digging holes with paddles? What obnoxious rubbish! and you expect people to change their beliefs on your writings.”
I know the name of the guy with the paddle and the guy who related the event was well-known on the Big Sandy scene. While this is not unimpeachable, I know the people involved and I believe it. The guy was just trying to obey the Torah. After all, he had heard from the Armstrongist pulpit that the law of God was written on his heart and that law is the Torah. If you are dedicated to this same principle, perhaps you should become involved in this kind of outdoorsmanship.
It appears that you have brought up something peripheral because you do not have a defense against the rest of what I said. And I do not write for Armstrongists. I believe that most, if not all, Armstrongists are non-Elect and missionary work will not change that. I write for the people who have already left Armstrongism. For people in this category, it is now time to reflect on what Armstrongism actually was in their lives.
Scout
Anonymous 10:47. Do you have anything other than ad hominem attack to offer?
BP8
I could find no direct evidence that the seventh day was observed prior to the Exodus events. Apparently, it was mentioned just prior to Sinai. But Israel was told to “remember’ the Sabbath day. This may have meant they had a history with the Sabbath but there is no evidence of that in the Torah. The first mention of the Sabbath in the non-Biblical history of Israel dates to about the seventh century BC – well after the Exodus events.
The ancient Babylonians kept something they called sabattu as a day for the pacification of the heart. Regular activities were halted. But the jury is out as to whether sabattu and sabbath have the same origin. The Babylonian sabbatu is much earlier than any of the Israelite references. This would coincide with a much earlier, but non-Israelite origin for the idea of resting a day.
The Book of Genesis is itself is not considered by Biblical scholars to be really ancient. So, the first reliable reference to the Sabbath in the Bible is in the Book of Amos which was written in the 8th Century BC.
(My source is a Reformed Jewish website.)
Scout
Yet there you'll be in church tommorrow pretending your Mr charm amongst Sabbath Christians. Jesus sees what you do.
You assume much "Scout". You ignore all scripture others bring up but falsely accuse others of not being able to challenge you.
Yet you are the sophistry King. Your audience if truth be told, is newly baptised UCG members and cronies and elite in on your secret.
Exodus 16 proves the 7th day Sabbath was being observed by the whole congregation of Israel well before the giving of the Ten Commandments from God at Mount Sinai.
God in Exodus 16 wanted to know 'Will they walk in my law or not" and the Glory of the Lord appeared in the clouds.
10:47 comment is the truth. How is truth an ad hominem attack? You think behaving difficult is what higher intellectuals should be. As being subtly mocking and never meaning a word you say. Peace ? You never meant it.
Ok, you got me with Adam- I put my foot in my mouth that time! Even so, the Sabbath was not in the covenant of Noah or Abraham although circumcision was in the latter. Even the diehards will concede that circumcision is no longer required which proves that covenants can change over time. Nowhere in the NT are gentile Christians told to keep the Sabbath. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 reads more like the Noahide Laws.
BTW, professing Christians were not welcome at the synagogue where they could 'learn more about God's laws' as some claim. Nicodemus met with Jesus under the cover of night and Joseph of Arimathea was a closet follower for fear of the Jews. Let's not forget the blind man healed by Jesus in John 9- he was thrown out of the synagogue for his testimony. Also take a look at Acts 13:42-52.
Scout 752
I hear what you're saying but I am not sure what your point is. Is it that the sabbath is not a creation institution, or that the 7th day mentioned in Genesis 2 differs from the sabbath of Exodus 16 and 20, or are you calling the biblical canon into question as to its reliability?
I know there are several scholars and theories about sabbath origins, but I try not to get bogged down with critics, textual criticism, and human opinion where the authenticity of both God and Scripture are called into question. I'm way past that and have no desire to debate. I also don't accept Ronco's premise that every book of the Bible has to speak on, confirm or reaffirm what logic, common sense, and other corresponding scriptures bring to light on the same subject matter. The sabbath was made for man but because of the absence of a command, he wasn't expected to acknowledge it???
I believe in a creation sabbath, which would put it in play for Adam and Eve, and all those who feared God up to the time of Moses. Though Genesis is not a book of commands, laws or legislation, we are told that "Abraham obeyed MY voice, kept MY charge, MY commandments, statutes and laws (26:5)." We are not told explicitly what that means, but it does demonstrate there was SOMETHING in play that God called "HIS" that Abraham was modelling his life after. Was the sabbath a part of that? I wouldn't rule it out considering what Genesis 2, Exodus 20, and Mark 2 collectively say about it.
Ronco 143
You made some good points and I respect your opinion. I've mentioned your name a couple of times here but I'm not putting you down. We just happen to disagree on a few things. Keep the comments coming!
BP8 2:12 wrote, “I believe in a creation sabbath, which would put it in play for Adam and Eve, and all those who feared God up to the time of Moses.”
Let me give what I am asserting in 7:52 a clearer connection to the core of this discussion. What you have written above is a personal assertion of faith but does not have a convincing exegetical basis. There are a number of reasons why. My list:
1. Genesis does not characterize what God did concerning the seventh-day as an example.
2. Genesis does not mention anything about people resting.
3. Genesis does not give any kind of instruction that people should rest on the seventh-day.
4. Genesis does not connect the seventh-day observation to Adam and Eve.
I do not believe there is any evidence that anybody kept the seventh-day in the Torahic sense between the time of Adam and Sinai. As for Abraham, this could be a very lengthy study by itself. One must realize that Genesis was written long after the time of Abraham. It was edited from a number of different sources probably in the period of the Babylonian Exile. What you are reading in Genesis 26:5 is an anachronism. For instance, Abraham did not keep the Passover which would be included in the language of verse 5 but was not inaugurated until later in Israel’s history. The Exodus account was retro-fitted into the Genesis account by the post-exilic editors. The retro-fit does not degrade in principle the content of what is stated in verse 5. Finally, modern Jewish scholars, by large consensus, do not believe that Abraham was required to keep the Sabbath.
The conclusion that I draw from this is that there is no eternal gravitas behind the seventh day. The spiritual rest of the Sabbath is still with us in Christ and, if in Christ, is eternal. But not the weekly implementation of a specific day. There is no Sabbath observance for people explicit in the Creation. There is no separate, eternal covenant in Exodus as HWA claims. There is the New Testament.
Scout
Probably my last statement of this discussion. If you cannot defend your position on the Sabbath or whatever, accusing me of being a renegade UCG minister, or some such, is a dog that won’t hunt. You are simply trying to recruit my writing into the petty war you are having with the UCG or some minister that you don’t like. The pathos is profound. I am an orthodox Christian lay member and care nothing about the petty, Pharisaical squabbles that occur between different Armstrongist cults. Those squabbles are nothing more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
If I make a reasoned, exegetical argument, the appropriate response is a reasoned, exegetical argument. Not pounding the drum for some private oddball junk conspiracy theory or critiquing my personal character. No wonder Dennis Diehl doesn’t show up anymore. It would be nice if someone who knew Armstrongist theology well and could defend it would enter these discussions. Someone who is “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”
Scout
Anon, Thursday, July 9, 2026 at 11:23:29 PM PDT, responded to RONCO by writing:
"The Emperor has no clothes ? Isn't that the legacy of Tkachites? GCI have the fastest closing church organisation around. Whole congregations disapearing without trace. Turning HQ church into coffee shops.
Even the Tkachites supporters have to go through the mill of trying out different religious denominations over the years to find a 'church home'.
What does Tkachites have to show for attacking COG people? Bitterness ? Emotional wounds that won't heal? Uncontrollable anger? Hatred? Overwhelming desires to cause hurt to others? Mockers? What a life! Dwelling on about dead mens sins whilst hating others faith and basic existence, and blind to your own sins. That's so what Jesus told his followers to do...NOT!!!"
******
Anon, that is quite a listing of negative traits, fruits, works, but not of God's Spirit.
Jesus Christ addressed the Church of the Laodiceans (still part of God's Church) with the following verbiage:
Revelation 3:15 "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:"
How long may those fruits/works, also negative-like, be reality for those Laodiceans today?
The Laodiceans are still part of God's Church, just as much as others of Ephesus, Smyrna...Sardis, Philadelphia (nothing to do with Flurry Inc.), who also had their particular problems (Rev 2-3). There are only 7 Churches (Rev 1:20), eras, organizations mentioned; there is no 8th, and some of the verses of Rev 2-3 tell of Satan's control (e.g. Eph 2:2; James 4:5; I John 3:8, etc.) within their lives.
Might Satan (John 10:1, 10, 12-13) have a part in scattering those Laodiceans?
Doesn't Satan, like a wolf, like a dragon, hate all of God's Church, and demonstrated so over the past approximately 2,000 years?
If the revelation that God the Father gave to Jesus Christ explains a temporary condition of all of those Laodiceans, when will repentance/change in their current "fruits/works" occur, and they begin to reflect more of the fruit of God's Spirit?
This thread has addressed such items as: law, Sabbath, covenant, commandments of God, etc.
Is a day coming when Laodiceans, like some remnant of God's Church, will value the commandments of God, which are like a way of life, and something different from the testimony of Jesus Christ?
Rev 12:16 "And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."
Time will tell...
John
BP8, Tuesday, July 7, 2026 at 10:14:46 AM PDT, wrote Scout saying:
[[Scout says, "the Torah is not the foundation on which the law of Christ is built"? Then what is? It seems to be when reading through the sermon on the mount. and in Paul's letter to the Corinthians (ch.5:1-8, 9:7-14). But once again I think we are missing the point of what is emphasized in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews concerning the plan of salvation. It's not about 2 packages of law, but 2 standings of " man".
The old man is contrasted with the new man. The one is not subject to law and therefore cannot please God, while the other serves and delights in the law. Your favorite prooftexts Mt. 11:28 actually brings this out. Where the spiritual rest Christ offers does not dismiss physical sabbath observance, it does directly affect the 2 covenants.
The OC was based on human self effort. The NC is based on faith in what God does. Hebrews 4:10 says this, "for he that is entered into his rest he also has ceased from his own works as God did". Verses 1and 10 are warnings to remain in the spiritual rest Christ gives and not to revert back to our carnal nature, our own works and trusting them for salvation. The Bible is full of these admonitions and in all them the law is not at fault....]]
******
I find it interesting the OC/self-effort and NC/faith in what God does.
Regarding the OC it was the people who made the covenant with God:
Exod 24:7 "And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient."
And the Israelites, without God's Spirit (Deut 29:4) failed and broke that covenant virtually immediately after the people spoke their words to be obedient. OC broken, b/c self-effort does not work!
Another covenant was to come, but it was one that God would make with the people, and God does not fail:
Exod 34:10 "And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou [art] shall see the work of the LORD: for it [is] a terrible thing that I will do with thee."
:27 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel."
This covenant did not depend upon the self-efforts of human beings. There would be blessings and cursings, but God will not, would not, break that covenant. God keeps His Word.
Will all human beings eventually be very grateful/thankful to God for such grace in their lives?
Time will tell...
John
BP8, Friday, July 10, 2026 at 6:02:42 AM PDT, wrote:
Ronco 1108 says, "the Bible records no such COMMAND (sabbath) given to Adam, Noah, or anyone else till Siani".
Ronco must be a Tkachite! That's one of Joe's old arguments he borrowed from others, but doesn't hold water.
Since you are setting the criteria by which to judge the book of Genesis (COMMAND), where in Genesis is the command against adultery, stealing, or covetousness? Like the Sabbath they are implied but not commanded, because Genesis is not a book of commands like Exodus, but a book of "origins ", beginnings. The sabbath originates in Genesis and is introduced in the creation story by DIVINE EXAMPLE, not command.
Also, the sabbath by name is first introduced in Exodus 16 BEFORE the children of Israel reached Siani. Look it up. And in both Exodus 16 and 20 the sabbath is presented as an already EXISTING institution, not a new concept!
Compare Genesis 2:2-3 and Exodus 20:8-11 side by side and you'll get the point.
As Jesus said, " the sabbath was made for man" and as Genesis points out, it was the day after man was created. If it wasn't made for and understood by Adam and Eve you make Christ out to be a liar, which is not good!
******
Focusing on: "...where in Genesis is the command against adultery, stealing, or covetousness? Like the Sabbath they are implied but not commanded, because Genesis is not a book of commands..."
Here is something that was commanded in Genesis:
Genesis 2:16 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:"
:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
God commanded all of that, which makes it like a law.
Satan in Genesis 3:1 lied to Eve when it spoke the words "Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden," which was contrary to God's commanded words/law stated in Genesis 2:16.
Satan in Genesis 3:4 lied to Eve when it spoke the words "Ye shall not surely die:", which was contrary to God's commanded words/law stated in Genesis 2:17.
Then, Eve got involved with such fruits/works as adultery, stealing, or covetousness relative fruit and paying too much attention to another: god.
Was what God commanded Adam actually like a commandment/law or not?
Time will tell...
John
John 1035, you are right!
Sin existed in Genesis (the snake lied, Eve coveted, Cain murdered his brother), all showing there had to be some standard in play that people were held to. Paul makes a couple of statements that confirm: "Where there is no law there is no transgression," and "sin is not imputed where there is no law", (Romans 4:15, 5:13).
Apparently that reasoning is not good enough for some people. They demand a " thus saith the Lord" on everything except their own cherished customs and traditions, like Sunday, Christmas and Easter. It is a Double standard!
BP8, John
I believe there was a law in effect prior to Sinai. It varied down through the centuries. Genesis describes for us God’s expectations in Genesis for Adam and Eve. We know that Melchisedec was active during the time of Abraham. What the Bible does not say is that the pre-Sinai laws extant at various times and places constituted the Torah. Moses seemed to think that the bestowal of the Torah was unique in history. Moses stated in Deuteronomy 4:
"For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as is the Lord our God whenever we call on Him? Or what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law (torah) which I am setting before you today?"
I think there was law and, hence, sin, prior to Sinai. But it was not the Torah and did not include the seventh day Sabbath. All we know of the pre-Sinai bodies of law is what is revealed to us about them in scripture. Jewish tradition emphasizes the Noahide Laws for Gentiles. Some Armstrongists would have us believe, without exegesis, that whenever law is mentioned in that early time, it had to be the Torah.
Once again, if Armstrongists believe that the Torah is God’s eternal law applicable to all peoples during all times, then we must ask why they do not keep it. Jesus, whom they claim to be their example, kept it down to the jot and tittle.
Scout
It is indeed a double standard.
I don't think you really understand what you rush to condemn.
Why attack Sabbath Christians to the extent you do? If your version of everything is the only correct version to worship God, then why are you wilfully expending such energy in firing potshots at Sabbatarianisim ?
You proclaim to be in perfect rest with Jesus but from where I'm standing you don't write very restful to me.
You fight like General Patton in WW2. Or do you think Jesus will give you a higher reward for the amount of scalps of Sabbath Christians you notch up ?
BP8 wrote, “They demand a " thus saith the Lord" on everything except their own cherished customs and traditions, like Sunday, Christmas and Easter. It is a Double standard!”
Some concerns require a “thus saith the Lord” and some do not. It is not a double standard but a case-by-case evaluation. Nobody believes that keeping Easter is a requirement for salvation. It is regarded as tradition and personal devotion. It falls into the category of liturgy.
I believe observing the seventh-day is also liturgy like Easter. But there are a tiny minority of people, known as Armstrongists, who believe that the seventh-day rises to the level of soteriology, that seventh-day observance is a requirement for salvation and that this is rooted in scripture. This places these Armstrongists in the category of the Circumcision Party which was vigorously opposed by Paul. Some Armstrongists deny that the seventh-day is a requirement for salvation but then there is no other reason for them to argue against my viewpoint, yet they do. It is impossible for Armstrongists to deny the seventh-day is a requirement for salvation if they view it as one of the Ten Commandments and do not acknowledge that it was transformed under the New Testament. If we are talking about soteriology then “thus saith the Lord” is appropriate. The importance requires it.
The idea that the seventh-day was decreed as a law from the Creation is intended, like HWA says, to place the seventh-day above the covenants. So, even if the Old Covenant were rescinded, the seventh-day Sabbath alone would remain. My essay exegetes the fact that this view is flawed. If Armstrongists believed the seventh-day to be only liturgical, I would have never written the article and they would never have challenged my viewpoint.
Neither orthodox Christian nor Jewish theology advance the idea that the seventh-day is a requirement for salvation.
Scout
To rescind an agreement (Old Covenant) about law does not rescind, change the law.
The word "Torah" is from a Hebrew word that means "instruction," according to Jewish tradition. The term came to specifically denote the first five books of the Hebrew bible. When most think of Torah they immediately think of laws, do's, don't, and the like, but it is more than that. These five books give, not just instruction applicable to almost any human endeavor, but also examples of Divine activity, as well as human frailty, the challenges, the victories, failings, journeys, trials, tests, and lessons, beginning in the garden and leading up to the time of children of Israel in captivity and the wilderness. These lessons are a vary valuable part of the instruction (see 1 Corinthians 10).
The Torah does contain instruction which would apply to all peoples during all times, but its specifics may not have relevance based on their particular setting. Adam and Eve would have no use for instruction concerning slavery, or a theocracy, but that does not diminish or nullify the value of these things in their proper context.
When human sin entered into the world God acted very quickly in providing a way back to Himself. The doctrine of substitution was the first RECORDED truth that we see being taught mankind. It is the first great lesson that is written down in Scripture for our learning. In doing so, God specifically laid down rules in how He was to be approached. It would be by His way according to his instructions, and not man's way. Cain learned that lesson the hard way! Other concepts recorded early on were the sabbath (creation), the clean and unclean (Noah), and the unidentified laws and commandments given to Abraham.
It was not just the Torah but all old testament scripture is said to be profitable for instruction in righteousness, whether every specific detail is applicable or not (2 Tim.3:16). Man's natural legalistic inclination gravitates toward do's and don'ts, but a full and complete "instruction" with all its underpinning principles cannot be reduced to that level, neither can it be codified, for it is the product and revelation of the spiritual mind and nature of God himself.
The conclusion of the matter is, through the new covenant we have the promise of participating fully in this complete instruction in righteousness process called "salvation" where the spirit dwells within and writes God's law into our very being. Then, Christ will be "formed" in us!
Anonymous 2:46
I agree. The Torahic legislation still exists. Just like we can open the Tanakh and see all 613 laws written there. What rescinding does do is make the laws "of none effect" because there is no longer an agreement concerning their implementation.
Some of the Torahic laws , such as the Ten Commandments, were immediately re-implemented under the New Covenant after the Old Covenant went away. Some Torahic laws were transformed like circumcision and the seventh day. Others were set aside. One must look
into the New Covenant to see what laws are now in force. All this happened in an instant.
Scout
Prime example here of you muddling the First/Old Covenant God made with Israel and the laws of God.
Revelation speaks of "...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". Harold Camping claimed latter day revelation that Christ indeed was slain before the creation and the cross was just some kind of demonstration. That went over about as well as his May 21 Judgment Day debacle. It's probably better to see that as a poetic way of stating that the plan of redemption was preordained before the foundation of the world, but the event had to wait for its proper placement in the timeline of human history. Perhaps the same is true for the Sabbath being preordained at creation to be given to the Israelites at the proper time in Exodus 31:12 as opposed to it being given to Adam at the beginning.
Just thought I'd throw that out there to the lions and alligators to chew up...
Cheers!
The whole purpose of the Covenant was for the tranforming of the human heart. People talk about Torah as cold lawyers disscussing a business agreement.
You are both, and Dennis C Deihl was your other fake name. Do you think we cannot 'see' you?
You have your other half write nasty mocking insults bullying people left, right and centre and then get all discombobulated if people stand up for themselves and defend themselves. You dish it out but cannot take people defending themselves.It's not 1995 anymore. Not only will your dog not hunt, it won't destroy Tabernacles services either.
BP8 6:25
I agree with your overview. You have provided a good philosophical picture of the function of law and in particular the Torah. I believe that the Torah is God’s will for a certain group of people during a certain time on this earth. But because it reflects God himself, it contains some principles that are useful for all people at all times. And I believe that the moral essence of the Torah is found in the Law of Christ in the New Testament. To wit, love God with your whole being and your neighbor as yourself.
But there are issues with the Torah, among them:
1. It is a national constitution and contains civic laws for running the governmental functions of a theocracy. (Like how the institution of slavery should be managed.)
2. It is temporal in that it does not address an afterlife. It is about how to live a good earthly existence with earthly blessings. (Then afterward everyone, no matter if they were evil or good, went to Sheol.)
3. It contains liturgy that is focused on Jerusalem and the Temple. It overlooks people who live beyond the fringes of the ancient Hebrew world. (After the 70 AD collapse, the Jews had to repackage the Torah to function in the Diaspora. I think this was the biggest overhaul of the Torah that anybody ever attempted before Armstrongism.)
Those are few items off the top. I’m not a theologian. The Book of Hebrews contains more issues. The problem that Paul had with the Torah is that it was a great, insurmountable barrier between Jews and Gentiles. He recognized that the Torah wasn’t for everybody. Happily, God provided the solution to the problem in Jesus.
The reason why Armstrongists advocate for the Torah, even though it has little role in their lives, is that the Torah asserts the seventh day. And they believe the law (Torah) is written on their hearts just like Jeremiah said, although it is difficult to find an explicit statement to that effect in their writings. It’s like they never really asked the question, “Now that we have the Torah, what do we do with it?” They got as far as the seventh-day and a few other things and then quit.
Scout
This is incorrect in Isaiah 56 God repeatedly says how the Sabbath was for gentiles and jews. God speaks of 'Son's of the stranger' 'Foreigners within'.
God from the begining allowed gentiles wanting to worship God and keep the Sabbath. God never treated them badly.
Ronco 1023 writes
Perhaps the sabbath being preordained at creation meant it was to be given to the Israelites at the proper time, as opposed to it being given to Adam.
That's an excellent observation that can't be ruled out. All I can say is, we don't know. God has chosen not to reveal certain facts to us. But just because He choses not to reveal WHAT He does WHEN doesn't give license to jump to conclusions that may not be true.
I believe the inference can be made that God revealed the sabbath to Adam. But because we are not specifically told, some say, Genesis doesn't give us any kind of instruction that people should rest, NOR does Genesis connect the sabbath to Adam. End of story. I know where they are coming from but consider these other examples.
Cain and Abel came before God offering sacrifices (Genesis 4, Hebrews 11:4), of which one was accepted and one rejected. This presupposes that the concept of "offerings and sacrifices" was in existence and that the 2 brothers must have had some kind of instruction as to HOW God wanted them presented, but we are not told.
When preparing the ark, Noah was instructed in the distinction between clean and unclean animals (Genesis 7:2), but we are not given any other details as to what he knew when. But the concept is there and being applied. He also offered offerings (8:20) according to some kind of standard but again we are not given any specifics. But us not knowing does not change what IS revealed.
Abraham walked before God and kept laws and commandments that were in place, and we are not told much more beyond that. God reveals what He chooses to reveal, and only He knows why. But this is a powerful reinforcement that God has standards and those following Him knew about them.
When the nation of Israel emerged, God's ways were thoroughly revealed, explained, codified, solidified, and made known so the nation could utilize the information for functional life as a collective body. But this doesn't mean this information, whether all or partial wasn't known or practiced by men of God beforehand, only that God chose not to tell us about it. We want to know but perhaps we don't need to know everything when formulating sound conclusions based on the information we do have.
Known unto God are all His works, even when He chooses to leave us out of the loop!
“Now that we have the Torah, what do we do with it?” They got as far as the seventh-day and a few other things and then quit." Scout 725
**********************
OK. The following is very preliminary, summarized, subject to correction, criticism.........but first: when Jesus came, faith came, the Holy Spirit came, we are no longer under the law as as a tutor and schoolmaster because we are now having Christ formed in us by the Holy Spirit growing in grace, knowledge, the HP bringing to mind what to say, helping us remember scripture, etc.......BUT, the law is still there in Ex 20-23. We don't sacrifice animals anymore but if you make an altar of stone the stone shall not be hewn....etc.
After the covenant in Ex 24 the Levitical Priesthood (LP) was "set up" to deal with sin, remedies, transgressions, etc of the law. Hebrews 7 indicates these laws are of necessity now removed; the LP is not here at this time. Those laws include tithing (!) to support the LP. Yes, Jacob and Abraham tithed but willingly? Where's the commandment to tithe on spoils? But not all laws after Ex 24 are removed it seems.
Comments on Leviticus......Chapters 1 - 10 >>>> the LP, now removed? Chapters 11 - 15 >>>>>laws of clean, unclean, not removed except those relating to priests? Chapters 16 - 27 >>>>> human relations, sex, other laws not removed except those relating to the priests? They are instructions on how to live, etc.
Anonymous 5:28
You're pulling this out of your hip pocket. What I am saying is that Armstrongists should have an organized and documented commentary on the 613 laws of the Torah. If they were serious about the Torah, they would already have done this decades ago. No hip pocket rendition required.
Scout
BP8, Tuesday, July 14, 2026 at 1:49:22 PM PDT, gave an excellent response to Ronco 1023 with examples of Adam, Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham and Israel and concluding with writing this:
"...When the nation of Israel emerged, God's ways were thoroughly revealed, explained, codified, solidified, and made known so the nation could utilize the information for functional life as a collective body. But this doesn't mean this information, whether all or partial wasn't known or practiced by men of God beforehand, only that God chose not to tell us about it. We want to know but perhaps we don't need to know everything when formulating sound conclusions based on the information we do have.
Known unto God are all His works, even when He chooses to leave us out of the loop!..."
******
Today, we live in an evil world seemingly held captive by unseen forces (Eph 2:2, 6:12; I John 3:8), whereby it appears that we are all learning about evils (e.g. Romans 7:17, 20-21, and we spend a lot of time living (sinning?) unhappily day by day. Why not? After all, Paul was inspired to tell us this: "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope," Romans 8:20. Who made the creation that way? Did Paul lie to us?
Well, at least, there is hope!
Ancient physical Israel, part of God's works, was a miracle people/nation created by God via Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. Was that a shadow, a pattern, of God's creation of a spiritual Israel, God's Church (John 1:12-13)?
Moses wrote 5 books, but Moses was not an eye-witness of all of the historical events mentioned in those books. How accurate is all of the history Moses wrote about? How did Moses know about Adam? Cain? etc. Moses spent a lot of time listening to the voice of God, who inspired Moses, and probably dictated what Moses would write. We don't know of any journals left behind by Adam and Eve.
Ronco 1023 wrote: "...Perhaps the sabbath being preordained at creation meant it was to be given to the Israelites at the proper time, as opposed to it being given to Adam..."
Paul wrote: "For the law having a shadow of good things to come,.." Heb 10:1
The Bible is full of examples, shadows, figures of things to come.
Ronco 1023 also commented saying: [Revelation speaks of "...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world".]
Not only was the law a shadow of good things to come, but so was that Lamb slain, as evidenced by the original Passover, a shadow of that future slain Lamb. What's good about it? Does grace "ring a bell?"
BP8 wrote: "...some say, Genesis doesn't give us any kind of instruction that people should rest, NOR does Genesis connect the sabbath to Adam. End of story..."
Adam was a man. The Sabbath was made for man, and Adam will again live, as a man, and observe that Sabbath.
Genesis mentions the 7th day and nowhere did it say: "And the evening and the morning were the seventh day." It is a day that won't end. Everlasting? Perpetual? Time will tell. That 7th day ties into the Sabbath day. Will it be everlasting, perpetual?
The Great Last Day, God's 7th annual Holyday, has a lot of good things, good news, including rest to be entered into, scheduled for generations of all nations/families forever. Obviously, God must do more than to "save all Israel."
God is not a dummy, and all of His works He is perfectly working out, whether we are in some loop to understand it or not:
"For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world." Heb 4:3
Is it possible that the 7th day, later called the Sabbath, is a shadow, pattern, of that 7th annual Holyday, ("...and on the eighth day [shall be] a sabbath." Lev 23:39), a Great Day, a Last Day, a day that will never end and people finally do "live happily ever after?" Or, might this just be something more for beasts: "...the lions and alligators to chew up?"
Time will tell...
John
Where in scripture does it claim Eve got involved in adultery, stealing or covetousness?
Genesis is a book of history, beginnings and is given much respect and authority by Jesus himself in the New Testament.
John 7:18 wrote, “Moses wrote 5 books, but Moses was not an eye-witness of all of the historical events mentioned in those books.”
I used to believe that the Documentary Hypothesis was malarkey but now I believe it to be for the most part true. The Torah, including Genesis, existed as a collection of pericopes until redaction by Ezra in the post-exilic period. The primary contributors of text were the Yahwists, Elohists, Deuteronomists and Priests. The groups can be identified by their writing styles and semantics. Dr. Richard Elliott Friedman has published some very convincing works on this topic. If Moses wrote any of it, it was the Deuteronomist piece.
If God wanted to take this collegial approach to the creation of the Tanakh, it should not concern us. When Jesus came he did not launch a re-write effort to correct the Tanakh. This indicates that he was fine with what was done with it through centuries of curation. This is especially so since he came as the Word of God in the flesh. He brought us the message we need to follow, thought the OT has value as a document of ethics. Jesus said, “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached…” We are now in a different Age. I marvel that there are people who run to the Old Testament and elbow Jesus out of the way to try to figure out what the will of God is.
Scout
What Bible version is your quote of John 7:18 from ?
You cannot have the New Testament without the Old Testament, they both affirm Jesus fullness and stature. Without the O.T. it would be an attack on Jesus as the Messiah in the N.T.
For Jesus quoted directly from the O.T. 78 times , about one tenth of his recorded N.T. words consist of O.T. quotes and allusions. He quotes most from Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Psalms and Exodus. To ignore O.T. is taking away depth and meaning from the teachings and understanding of Jesus.
Also the apostle Paul quoted from O.T. 100 times. He favoured the prophets and the Torah. The book of Isaiah is his most frequently quoted prophetic book by 36 times, Psalms his second by 23 times and the Torah 40 times.
In relation to the book of Genesis the N.T also affirms it's authority.by treating it's narrative as foundational historical truth. Jesus himself treated the Genesis flood as a literal historical event to warn of his second coming. He also affirms the reality of Abel being the first martyr in Luke 11:52.
O.T. is the only scripture Jesus read and taught from.
Anonymous 11:39
John 7:18 is a combination of commenter John's moniker plus a timestamp. Like I am using Anonymous 11:39 for you. The software, I think, thought it was a chapter and verse reference from the Gospel of John. It is confusing.
I wrote, "Jesus is the Word of God in action and the New Testament message that he brought to us supplants the Old Testament."
What I wrote is unclear. I did not mean that the message that Jesus brought us renders the OT completely without value. Let me say it in a different way.
The message of salvation that Jesus brought to us supplants the limited salvation found in the OT. Better promises.
My view is that the NT does not build on the OT in the pathway to salvation. It is not a difference in degree but a difference in category. The NT is not the OT only more so. This is the logic that Armstrongists apply to the Torah. They believe that the behavioral requirements of the NT are an intensification of Torah. What Jesus brought us was a New Covenant and a new law. There are some similarities between the Torah and the Law of Christ. This is because both standards originate with God.
I believe it is important to understand this or some of what the author Hebrews wrote is not intelligible.
Scout
Scout
Anon, aka Scout, Thursday, July 16, 2026 at 4:20:54 PM PDT, replied to Anonymous 11:39, and said the following:
"...Let me say it in a different way.
The message of salvation that Jesus brought to us supplants the limited salvation found in the OT. Better promises...I believe it is important to understand this or some of what the author Hebrews wrote is not intelligible."
******
Scout, how does: "The message of salvation that Jesus brought to us supplants the limited salvation found in the OT?"
Isn't the gospel about salvation of all nations/families?
That inspired writer of Hebrews seems to be intelligible when he wrote the following about something in the OT:
"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed." Gal 3:8
Nothing about a better promise(s) there.
Did the OT provide a limited salvation? Was/is God a respecter of persons?
And here is the OT.
"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." Genesis 12:3
Why limitation regarding salvation?
The promise is blessings for all nations/families. What's better than that?
Yes, salvation, a wonderful gift of God, is a blessing for all nations/families; however, where did your idea of better promises fit in with salvation?
In this present evil world, some people may/will receive another spirit (e.g. James 4:5; Eph 2:2), another Jesus, and/or even another gospel.
Despite that, better promises or not, will the gospel preached to Abraham, as mentioned by Paul, apply to all nations/families or not?
Time will tell...
John
John
The “better promises” idea is not my own. From Hebrews 8:6:
“But now hath he (Jesus) obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”
You have cited:
"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed. Gal 3:8
This promise made to Abraham cited in Gal 3:8 looks forward to the future. It is not speaking of the provision of salvation through Old Testament Torah observance. The Old Testament does not bring us resurrection, eternal life and participation in the divine nature. The OT focuses on living a good life in this time of our flesh. Then at death, all enter Sheol. That is why it states that in John 1:17: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” The Law can bring a good life here and now, if you can keep it. But the promises of the future come to us through the grace that is in Christ.
John 1:17 by itself informs us that there is bifurcation between the Old and New Testaments. The outcomes are different. One is a mundane apple and the other is a glorious orange.
Scout
Anon, aka Scout, Saturday, July 18, 2026 at 8:29:28 AM PDT wrote the following and I will comment using double [[brackets]]:
John
The “better promises” idea is not my own. From Hebrews 8:6:
“But now hath he (Jesus) obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”
You have cited:
"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed. Gal 3:8
This promise made to Abraham cited in Gal 3:8 looks forward to the future. It is not speaking of the provision of salvation through Old Testament Torah observance. The Old Testament does not bring us resurrection, eternal life and participation in the divine nature.
[[And neither does the New Testament bring those things, but God is consistent and He inspired both the OT and the NT, and all of His works are known (Acts 15:18; Heb 4:3) from the beginning of the world. Jesus' God, Jesus' Father by His Spirit, by His perfect plan of salvation, will provide that resurrection, eternal life via His Son (I Cor 8:6). Jesus' God reveals His Will, His Mind, throughout the OT, as well as the NT. E.g. Abraham was aware of resurrection. Isaiah was aware that ALL Israel would be saved (& what about the rest?" Isaiah, David, and Job knew about resurrection)!
Both Moses and Abraham, like Jesus Christ, came along in time decently, and in order, like a whole bunch of others as part of Jesus' God's Plan of salvation:
Heb 11:17 "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son],
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
20 By faith Isaac blessed...
21 By faith Jacob...blessed both the sons of Joseph...
22 By faith Joseph...made mention...
23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw...
24 By faith Moses...refused to be called the son of Pharaoh s daughter;
25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God...
26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.
28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not...
32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and [of] Barak, and [of] Samson, and [of] Jephthae; [of] David also, and Samuel, and [of] the prophets:
33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
36 And others had trial of [cruel] mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and [in] mountains, and [in] dens and caves of the earth.
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:"
Why did all of those OT and NT events take place, engineered by Jesus' God?
To be continued…
John
Continuing my double [[bracket]] response to Scout’s comments:
[[Why did all of those OT and NT events take place, engineered by Jesus' God?
Answer!
Heb 11:40 "God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."
It is all part of one complete, perfect, plan of salvation…each man/woman in his/her own order, respectively!]]
The OT focuses on living a good life in this time of our flesh.
[[And the OT also focuses on living an evil life in this time of our flesh! Sin and evil weren't just for the Apostle Paul (Romans 7:17, 20-21); It's OT and NT!
"The LORD hath made all [things] for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Proverbs 16:4 We, like those in the OT, live in the day of evil, which isn't planned forEVER!]]
Then at death, all enter Sheol.
[[That happens in OT and NT: Hebrews 2:14-15]]
That is why it states that in John 1:17: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” The Law can bring a good life here and now, if you can keep it. But the promises of the future come to us through the grace that is in Christ.
[[Jesus' God gave us law, grace and truth.]]
John 1:17 by itself informs us that there is bifurcation between the Old and New Testaments. The outcomes are different. One is a mundane apple and the other is a glorious orange.
[[If there were no mundane apple, there would not be a glorious orange.
IOW, Because of God's works/fruits by His Spirit (Zech 4:6) ALL Israel shall be saved, and there will be hearts (Psalm 22:26) that live a long time!
Psalm 22:24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.
25 My praise [shall be] of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.
26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.
27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.
28 For the kingdom [is] the LORD S: and he [is] the governor among the nations.
29 All [they that be] fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.
30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
31 They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done [this].
Doesn't a large portion of the OT contain a lot of Jesus’ God’s wonderful works (Psalm 111:4) that look forward to a "done-deal" future when all nations/families shall be blessed?
Time will tell...
John]]
John 8:10:02
If I might summarize what you have written. Let me know if this inaccurate. You assert that the OT and NT work in conjunction to bring salvation. You have seen the will of God in the OT and the will of God in the NT and to you it would not make sense that either should be discarded.
If I might summarize my belief. I believe the OT and the NT are operationally separate. The OT was terminated and replaced by the NT. This encompasses both covenants and laws under each testament. I do, on the other hand, believe that there are similarities in the principles and concepts in both the OT and the NT and the OT has pedagogical value.
My counterpoint is that if there is a blend of the OT and NT, then why would Paul have fought so vehemently with the Circumcision Party and why was there a Jerusalem Council at all? Further, there is Paul’s statement below:
“But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are enslaved in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the written code. (NRSV, Romans 7:6 )”
Does that sound like Paul had an amicable view of the OT? I believe that the OT stands by itself. And that the NT stands by itself. Under the OT behavior is defined by the Torah and the prophets. In the NT behavior is defined by “the newness of the Spirit.” And any blend of the two inevitably produces various heresies. You will find yourself keeping the seventh day Sabbath because you believe mistakenly that it is on the critical path to salvation rather than understanding that our Sabbath is now in Christ.
Scout
Anon, aka Scout, Sunday, July 19, 2026 at 2:00:09 PM PDT, wrote and I'll comment using double [[brackets]].
“…If I might summarize my belief. I believe the OT and the NT are operationally separate. The OT was terminated and replaced by the NT
[[Why should the OT be terminated? That is ridiculous. Both complement each other, and both were inspired by Jesus' God, His Father.]]…
…My counterpoint is that if there is a blend of the OT and NT, then why would Paul have fought so vehemently with the Circumcision Party
[[That was because certain, misinformed, men from Judaea were striving to tell those of God's Church that they could not be saved unless they were circumcised. ]]
and why was there a Jerusalem Council at all?
[[Peter was the chief apostle, so Paul and Barnabas determined they should visit Jerusalem to further discuss with apostles and elders; Physical circumcision was not a requirement but was like a yoke on men. Peter "xplained" grace to them at that conference. Case closed, for a while (Ezek 44:9)!]]
Further, there is Paul’s statement below:
“But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are enslaved in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the written code. (NRSV, Romans 7:6 )”
Does that sound like Paul had an amicable view of the OT?
[[Paul is not talking about the OT. He is talking about something written in the OT.]]
I believe that the OT stands by itself. And that the NT stands by itself. Under the OT behavior is defined by the Torah and the prophets. In the NT behavior is defined by “the newness of the Spirit.”
[[You brought up circumcision, which was initiated in the OT. Physical circumcision isn't necessary for salvation, but there is a spiritual circumcision for those who are begotten by God's Spirit to become part of God's Church. Well, circumcision will again be in vogue way off in the future yet. How do we know? Ezekiel tells us:
Ezekiel 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."
Those words, that dual circumcision, did not occur in the OT; It isn't applicable today in the NT, but it will eventually be done way off in the future yet. Circumcision is important to God, who initially brought up the subject. Circumcision means something, and so do Cycles. The Bible speaks about things that are 7 days, other things that are 8 days. Why? God has a purpose for everything that He has created, but He has His Will and His time while doing things decently and in order. The OT does not have to be discarded.
The OT is full of good stuff. Is Isaiah going to be in the first or second resurrection? There is no 3rd resurrection. Do you want the answer? It is in the OT, and not in the NT. Isaiah 26:19!!! My point: the OT is not terminated.
To be continued…
John]]
[[Continuing, beginning with another one of Scout’s comments…]]
And any blend of the two inevitably produces various heresies. You will find yourself keeping the seventh day Sabbath because you believe mistakenly that it is on the critical path to salvation
[[How did you conclude that? What's wrong with observing God's Sabbath? It was made for man. God has His purpose for it. Why discard it?]]
rather than understanding that our Sabbath is now in Christ.”
[[Who said that phrase, "our Sabbath is now in Christ?" Where did you get that? Christ did a lot of neat things on God's Sabbath. God created the 7th day Sabbath. The Word was made flesh: Jesus' God made that happen. The Sabbath has its own purpose. How do you rest in the Word made flesh?
Paul wrote these words:
Romans 8:6 "For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace.
:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
Is it possible that those who are not subject to God's law (including that 7th day Sabbath, which is part of living a way of life) is because their minds are enmity against God: in lieu of being amicable?
So far, that seems to be true for most people in this present evil world controlled by Satan (Matt 4:8-9, 12:34; Luke 4:5-7; Eph 2:2, 6:12; James 4:5, etc.), but time will tell...
John]]
Scout and John
Romans 7:6 is referring to a new orientation (that we should SERVE in newness of spirit), toward the one and only law, not a different law. This is illustrated in 1 Corinthians 9 where it is applied to the law of Moses. This new orientation is also seen in Scout's favorite proof text, Acts 15, where we find circumcision after the "manner of Moses" verses circumcision after the "manner " of Christ.
Scout would say that this new orientation would also apply to the sabbath, where the spiritual sabbath supersedes the physical sabbath. That may sound good on paper, but is it true? Consider the exact wording of the 4th commandment, a part that never gets quoted:
"Six days shall thou labor and do all THY work", Exodus 20:9.
Bullinger's Companion bible comment on this is, " the Heb. accent (zarka) marks this word for emphasis, implying that the 4th commandment is twofold, and no 7th day rest can be really enjoyed apart from the 6 days of labor ".
Before we spiritualize every physical aspect of the OT away, let's consider this: Does Pauline theology say anything to the spiritual Christian about " physical " work? Yes it does, and in the strongest of terms. Ephesians 4:25-32 places physical work in the highest regard as an expectation of the Lord. 2 Thess. 3:10-12 (which is directed to spiritual minded Christians) is a strong condemnation for not working, even to the point of saying, "if any will not work, neither should he eat"!
Finally, take a look at 1 Timothy 5:8. To the spiritual church member Paul says, " if any provide not for his own household, he has DENIED THE FAITH AND IS WORSE THAN AN UNBELIEVER (infidel). You can't get any stronger correction than that for it sounds like it could carry salvation overtones!
Physical work plays a paramount role in the NT, and work necessitates physical rest. A spiritual rest would have little solace in this regard because it is not even for that. Spiritual Christians are still (expected / required) to do physical work, and such work demands physical rest. Thankfully, God has provided for that in the sabbath, which was made for man for that purpose!
It is suggested that it would be not be easy to argue the “zark” emphasizes the verb, this is where one would expect the major verse division to occur - it couldn’t occur anywhere else.
As this is a short verse in Hebrew, six words, the Masoretes employed a Zaqef Qaton to mark the major verse division instead of the ’Athnach.
Perhaps the verse of ‘six words’ was to complement and emphasize the “six days.”
John
Rather than try to cover everything that you have mentioned, I will reply to a salient point. The rest is contingent on this point.
You stated, “Why should the OT be terminated? That is ridiculous. Both complement each other, and both were inspired by Jesus' God, His Father.”
This is the classical Armstrongist error. Armstrongists reason that if you have one testament that is holy and then a second testament that is holy, then if you intermix them, then the combination must also be holy. This calculus is not true. The reason why is that God also inspired their separation so the intermixing results in something that is confused and unholy.
Once again, the pivotal scripture is Romans 7:6 (NRSV):
“But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are enslaved in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the written code.”
There can be no equivocation about what this says because Paul precedes it with an analogy involving the marital covenant. Simply, if the husband dies, the wife is no longer married to him. The law of the husband is dissolved. This analogy focuses specifically on the Torah. Armstrongists will assert that a change in covenant does not mean a change in law - the law remains. But this does not fit Paul’s analogy.
I do not know if this is still a part of Armstrongist theology, but they used to have this view. The view is that the “old man” dies in the watery grave of baptism. And the newly baptized person arises from the water grave to keep the Torah even more stringently. They assert that Christians are “dead” to law by perfectly conforming to it and becoming unreachable to its penalties. This is a twist that is not even remotely within the scope of Paul’s marital analogy but it preserves the seventh-day Sabbath.
The entire context in chapter 7 and 8 must be read. The sting of the Armstrongist argument for continued Torah-keeping is serious. They believe that they have proved that the Torah must be kept as a critical condition on the pathway to salvation. But they do not keep the Torah and have hung themselves with their own rope. And the idea that there is no other law is without merit. The Law of Christ is the Sermon on the Mount and the other behavioral standards described in the New Testament. Moreover, it is the action of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian.
My guess is that Armstrongists have confused this issue because the Torah and the Law of Christ possess a common ground. Both legislations originate with God. Both contain the Ten Commandments, for instance. But Paul states that the Torah is a package that goes away as a package. If you break one of its laws you break them all. If your wife does not proclaim herself as unclean when she is menstruating and thereby makes all she touches unclean (a health issue and not a ritual) then you have not only broken that specific health law but all of the Ten Commandments, according to Paul. The Christian view is that some of the laws of the Torah are incorporated into the Law of Christ, but the Torahic package has been replaced. And the keeping of the Law of Christ is an output of salvation not an input.
Scout
Anon, aka Scout, Tuesday, July 21, 2026 at 7:09:00 AM PDT said...
[["...Rather than try to cover everything that you have mentioned, I will reply to a salient point. The rest is contingent on this point.
You stated, “Why should the OT be terminated? That is ridiculous. Both complement each other, and both were inspired by Jesus' God, His Father.”
This is the classical Armstrongist error. Armstrongists reason that if you have one testament that is holy and then a second testament that is holy, then if you intermix them, then the combination must also be holy. This calculus is not true. The reason why is that God also inspired their separation so the intermixing results in something that is confused and unholy.
Once again, the pivotal scripture is Romans 7:6 (NRSV):..."]]
And your remaining paragraphs deal with Armstrongists that assert, Armstrongist theology, Armstrongist argument, Armstrongists, etc.
I did not speak about Armstrongists, and neither did PB8, Monday, July 20, 2026 at 6:38:03 AM PDT. Both of us addressed scriptures, and you are not interested in anything I wrote, but want to focus on Romans 7:6. Well, PB8, gave you a very good biblical response regarding that verse.
If you want to kind of pooh, pooh, the OT seventh day Sabbath, and consider the OT as being terminated, then you are welcome to do that. We're just not going to agree with you. Both PB8 and I strived to respond by using scripture and reasoning in a circle.
Rather than reason in a circle, it appears you are reasoning like a corkscrew, like being on a pig's tail: not reasoning in a circle that begins and ends somewhere on that circle.
I'm not really interested in Armstrongists. What does the Bible say?
If you think the OT is terminated, as you said, then what about the OT seventh day Sabbath? Are you striving to terminate it also? You're welcome to believe whatever you want.
Again, that pivotal scripture of Rom 7:6? I think PB8 gave an excellent explanation to you, and without bringing up Armstrongists.
Is God double-minded with regards to the OT and the NT? Did God terminate the OT? Did God terminate the seventh day Sabbath?
Time will tell...
John
John wrote, "you are not interested in anything I wrote, but want to focus on Romans 7:6. Well, PB8, gave you a very good biblical response regarding that verse."
I explained that Romans 7:6 is a pivotal scripture in this discussion, and I will not skip over it. I also explained why BP8's response was not adequate. It is not just a new view of the same law. This is apparent from the context of the scripture.
If you want to continue this dialog with me, you will need to set aside everything else (flooding the zone will not work) and give me your exegesis of Roman 7:6. Otherwise, bye.
Scout
7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
I have given my exegesis on the "law" many times before on this site and it is usually misrepresented, framed as a pathway to salvation, or met with the accusation of me being an Armstrongist. Again for the record, I am not presenting the Armstrong viewpoint, and I wholeheartedly agree that the keeping of the law is an output, not an imput.
In Romans 7:6 Paul contrasts serving in newness of spirit with serving in the oldness of the letter. This is not a dismissal of the law, but a shift from legalistic obedience to spirit-led living. The oldness of the letter describes the law as it was given on tables of stone, external, written rules that could reveal sin but could not transform the heart.
Through Christ's death and resurrection, believers are released from the law (7:4-6), which means freedom from the law's power to hold us captive to sin. In verses 1-4 , the husband dies, not the law. The conditions giving the law its power over the wife have been satisfied by the husband's death, therefore she is free. But the law itself is still there, it is not dead. If she marries again she will once again be bound by the law.
With the indwelling of the HS, believers are now empowered to live righteously, not by external compliance or fear, but by internal transformation which brings a new orientation. Paul does not abolish the law's moral principles. He affirms that the law is holy, just, and good, and the service we now offer through this new transformation is delight, not legalism, which is the attempt to live by the letter without a renewed heart.
Romans 6-8 is the crown jewel of the Gospel and Pauline theology. Its main thrust is OUR transformation from a carnal orientation (which is not subject to God's law), to a spiritual orientation (that delights in the law), and the service that flows from each. Its focus is a change from human nature to the divine, not a different package of laws, which is totally immaterial.
In Romans 7, the "law" is mentioned in almost every verse, and it is the SAME LAW in each. The law that defines sin (vs.5,8-11), the law we are dead to and delivered from (4,6), the law we delight in (22), and serve in newness of spirit (7,25), the law that is holy, just, good, and spiritual (12-16), is the same law throughout. Trying to interject the law of Moses and the law of Christ into the verses one chooses is not representative of the text, which merely says, "the law"! You can't have it both ways.
The conclusion to chapter 7 and the theme of the entire book is, " who shall save me from the body of this death?" Jesus Christ of course, for He is the author and finisher of our transformation and orientation, which is what Romans 6-8 is really about. So Paul thanks God through Jesus Christ our Lord. And "with the mind I myself serve (in newness of spirit) the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin (7:25)"
Anonymous 9:23 wrote, “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.”
I recall this scripture being cited many times in sermons by Armstrongist ministers. The intent was always to say the Torah, or at least the piece of the Torah that Armstrongists wanted to observe, is holy and righteous and good. But this statement exists in a context and must be considered in that context. A few sentences before this, Paul says, “But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive.” These two statements (Romans 7:6 and Romans 7:12), then, are in tension. Is Paul endorsing the keeping of the Torah or is he not?
In the intervening text between these two statements, Paul explains in his own unique way that the Torah was meant to be a way to life but because we are imperfect it is just, in effect, a pathway to death. The Torah does have practical value in that it tells us what sin is. I am in full agreement with this. At this point, it seems that we will all live in eternal condemnation, but a few sentences later Paul states, “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.”
Suddenly, Paul is speaking of two laws, the Torah and the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. These are two different laws because the latter sets you free from the former. The Book of Hebrews says that the former is in the process of becoming obsolete. These are clearly two different legislations counterposed against each other by Paul. In the former if you wore a garment of mixed fabrics you broke the entire body of legislation, including the Ten Commandments. In the latter, mixed fabrics do not make any difference. It is not what a man clothes his body with that matters but what comes out of his heart. This is not just two views of the same law. That is why we can be dead to the former but alive to the latter. The former legislation exists as text scattered throughout the Old Testament. The latter is legislation scattered throughout the New Testament. There is some overlap. The former still has ethical traction but is not the pathway to life after the atonement of the crucifixion.
Once again, at the risk of sounding like a Greek chorus, if Armstrongists believe that their view that the Torah is still binding, then they have lost salvation because they do not keep the Torah.
Scout
(Sigh....) What's becoming obsolete is a covenant, not the law.
What? There is "no becoming obsolete" The old covent is already obsolete. Finished, never to be used again. Useless, Irrelevant. The better way has replaced it.
557
You will never convince Scout of that. He apparently has his own personal translation that reads different from ours. He is also off on the 2 laws he mentions. The law of sin and death is the principle that is naturally served by the old nature. Romans 7:25 and 8:7 clearly distinguishes this from the law of God. The law of the spirit of life is not new legislation similar to torah, but a spiritual principle where the one and only law of God is served and fulfilled by the inward man's walk in the spirit. Through Christ and his spirit in us, we are transformed from the orientation of the flesh (death) to the orientation of the spirit (life), where the righteous requirements of the one and only law of God are fulfilled by our spiritual walk. It is the love of God fulfilling the law of God! Read carefully Romans 7:25-8:4, 13:8-10.
Anonymous 5:57
Technically the Covenant becomes obsolete. Concomitant to this, we become dead to the law. Theologically, two things happen; pragmatically, it is a package. The idea that the Covenant goes away but the Torah lives on is just not supported by scripture. If the Covenant becomes obsolete, it carries the Torah with it because there then is no longer an agreement about the Torah. The Torah exists only as a historical record. The Torah has traction as the will of God for a certain group of people living in a certain time. Now God's will is the New Covenant with the Law of Christ in the Spirit as its legislative corpus. The Torah does not have a separate, sustained existence as if it were a created artifact. It exists only at the pleasure of God.
Scout
Scout
5:57 I commented about covenants and laws getting muddled earlier.
So God doesn't believe in right and wrong then ?
Scout 923 writes
"The idea that the covenant goes but the Torah lives on is not supported by Scripture". I disagree!
The Torah lives on, it still exists. It's an intergral part of every Bible in my library. If it was merely a historical record written for a certain group of people at a certain time and no longer existed, then why did Paul continue to use it as his apostolic authority when teaching Gentile Corinthians in 1 Corinthians chapter 9? Also, far from not existing, we are also told that " all Scripture (including torah) is profitable for doctrine, for correction, and instruction (the definition of torah) in righteousness (not of itself, but) through faith that is in Christ Jesus " (2 Timothy 3:15-17).
The law of Christ (a term used twice in the NT) is not a legislative corpus. It cannot be legislated or codified. Being the spiritual principle and application of the one and only law, it reaches into infinity. The best definition we have is the one preached by our friend Lonnie, which is, love for God and love for neighbor (Mark 12:28-31). These 2 great commands are a summary of the one a only law which includes the torah. On these 2 hang all the old testament scriptures.
The new covenant's emphasis is not a new package of law but a new transformation and orientation for us, which affects how we view and relate to the law. For the new man, the law is no longer mere legislative external compliance (the old man's view) but that which is holy, just, good, and spiritual, which he now serves through the spirit and delights in. Our new focus is living by and walking in the spirit, by which "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (including torah) is satisfied (Deut.8:3, Matt.4:4, Romans 8:1-4). The new covenant includes EVERY word, EVERY principle, every jot and tittle, statutes, judgements, ordinances, and commandments, all to be written on the heart of the new man (Heb.8:10, Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:27). The full scope of this is impossible for the old man to comprehend and perform. It is only possible when it is written into the very fabric of our being!
We are clearly at an impasse here for neither of us is willing to compromise our position and yield to the other. I believe the culprit lies in reacting to and filtering everything through the corrupt Armstrong mindset, which itself was pure legalism and not a true reflection of either God's law or the new nature. All I can say is, as new postings come along we will have new opportunities for patience, respect, understanding and tolerance for each others beliefs and accumulated scholarship, and thereby we can all grow together and sharpen one another accordingly.
BP8 8:18 wrote, “The law of sin and death is the principle that is naturally served by the old nature. Romans 7:25 and 8:7 clearly distinguishes this from the law of God.”
The Law of Sin and Death is the Torah. The behavioral law that wars in Paul’s members, “carnality” as Armstrongists would say, is explained in verses 7-12. The operative principle that makes the Torah that Law of Sin and Death is in verse 11 where Paul writes, “For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.” This shows the connection between sin, the commandment and death. In 7:6, he refers to this as a “written code” that has been discharged (Greek, katargeō, either to render inoperative or abolish). He starts this entire section by referring to “those who know the law” and then cites something from the Torah.
And it is from this law we are discharged. We are never discharged from carnality. We always have it with us as a natural phenomenon and must struggle against it with the blessing of the Spirit. Sanctification which goes on during the entire life of the Christian’s is a struggle against this behavioral law that Paul refers to. or Armstrongists, it is the struggle against the carnal mind in order to qualify for salvation. It persists and is undischarged, borrowing the term Paul used of the Torah in verse 6.
Scout
I am enjoying this discussion but I feel often like I am futilely arguing a moot point. Nobody keeps the Torah. If it is written on the Armstrongist heart, apparently much of it is never translated into action. The Torah, which was Temple-based, ceased to be kept in 70 AD. At that time, a Pharisee named Yohanan ben Zakkai re-packaged the Torah to operate without a temple. For instance, he said that they animal sacrifices were now sacrifices of the heart. This is the origin of the Rabbinic Torah observation we have in modern Judaism.
The only other people I know of in history who over-hauled the Torah were the Armstrongists. They filtered it through Millerite belief and the WCG Church Administration Department and came up with a pared-down code that is Torah-like but is not the Torah that Jesus referred to and kept. Yet Paul said if you don’t keep all of it, you don’t keep any of it.
The paradox is that Armstrongists and people similar to Armstrongists argue energetically for the Torah but have never kept it and have no intention of keeping it. Torah-keeping is just a point of debate. The people who argue for it are not defending practice but theory. They don’t seem to understand that if they win the argument, they go to hell. So, from my perspective as a Christian, the point becomes moot.
Scout
Torah's a package? Ex 20-23 perhaps. The Pentateuch no. The Jerusalem council was very selective in extracting from the Torah what to tell the Gentiles
Torah's a package? Ex 20-23 perhaps. The Pentateuch no. The Jerusalem council was very selective in extracting from the Torah what to tell the Gentiles
Hell doesn't exist.
Scout 740 believes the law of sin and death is the Torah? No it isn't. The question is asked and answered in Romans 7:7:
"Is the law sin? (Scout says yes, Paul says no)! " For I had not known sin but by the law" for "by the law is the knowledge of sin" (3:20).
The wages of sin is death. The law brings on the death penalty when it is broken. "Cursed is the man who continues NOT in all things written in the book of the law to do them" (Gal.3:13).
The commandments slew Paul because he broke them (7:11). "For we know that the law is spiritual (not sin), but I am CARNAL sold under sin" (7:14). "For I know that in my flesh dwells no good thing (7:18). " For I delite in the law of God after the inward man. BUT, I see another law in my members (the flesh) warring against the law of my mind (the spirit) and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who shall save me from the body of this death? So then, with the mind (the new man) I serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin" (7:22-25). If the law of sin was the Torah verse 25 would make no sense at all. But it's not, for the law is not the problem.
What we see in Romans 6-8 is the solution to this human problem. Again, this is NOT a law problem. The Gospel and the NC solves the problem by changing US, our orientation and focus. Changing the law is of no avail. It is by abiding in Christ and yielding our members unto righteousness instead of the flesh that we become servants of God and bear fruit unto holiness and in the end, eternal life (John 15:5, Romans 6:19-22).
BP8
I will make a brief response to you last comment and then sign-off this topic.
You wrote, “The Torah lives on, it still exists. It's an intergral part of every Bible in my library.”
I would agree and already mentioned this. The Torah, as given by God to Israel, exists as a historical record only. It has had no active, vital instantiation since 70 AD. The mini-Torahs followed in Rabbinic Judaism and Armstrongism fall short of being the delivered word of God.
You wrote, “The law of Christ (a term used twice in the NT) is not a legislative corpus. It cannot be legislated or codified. Being the spiritual principle and application of the one and only law, it reaches into infinity.”
I would almost agree with this. I would say that it cannot be FULLY codified. That is one of my points of disagreement. The Law of Christ is contained in text in the New Testament manuscripts. But the manuscripts also emphasize the action of the Holy Spirit in the Christian’s life. And, of course, there is no “one and only law.” The semantics of the NT does not support this idea.
You wrote, “The new covenant includes EVERY word, EVERY principle, every jot and tittle, statutes, judgements, ordinances, and commandments, all to be written on the heart of the new man.”
If this were true, Paul would have never opposed the Circumcision Party. There would have never been a Jerusalem Council. The Book of Hebrews would never have been in the canon. There would never been the semantics of an Old and New Covenant in the Bible. Your statement would only work if the Torah were not only written on the heart but collapse into the two commandments: love God and love your neighbor. And then what would happen to the Armstrongists pre-occupation with their pared-down mini-Torah?
Scout
I had a keyboard fault. Happens a lot with my current laptop. The last part of my previous comment should have read:
You wrote, “The new covenant includes EVERY word, EVERY principle, every jot and tittle, statutes, judgements, ordinances, and commandments, all to be written on the heart of the new man.”
If this were true, Paul would have never opposed the Circumcision Party. There would have never been a Jerusalem Council. There would never been the semantics of an Old and New Covenant in the Bible. Your statement would only work if the Torah were not only written on the heart but collapse into the two commandments: love God and love your neighbor. And then what would happen to the Armstrongists pre-occupation with their pared-down mini-Torah?
Scout
Scout has an issue with what I wrote, that the new covenant includes every word, every principle, every jot and tittle, commandments, statutes, and ordinances, all to be written on the heart of the new man. When he quoted it back he failed to provide the scriptural references I provided. If everyone here will just look up and read Hebrews 8:10, Ezekiel 11:19-20, Ezekiel 36.27, and Deut.8:3, they can verify my statement. Also, Paul opposed the circumcision party because they falsely believed the Gentiles needed to be physically circumcised in order to be saved, when in fact they had already been circumcised spiritually by Christ. Or has Scout forgotten that true circumcision is now of the heart? As far as Armstrong's mini-torah goes, who cares. It adds nothing to the conversation.
BP8 1:57 wrote, “Scout 740 believes the law of sin and death is the Torah? No it isn't.”
Yes, I do. But I will grant that this passage has varying interpretations. It could also refer to the law that wars in Paul’s members. To show you that my interpretation is not so idiosyncratic, here is a statement from the Biblical Hermeneutics website:
” The first mention of the "law of sin and death" in Rom. 8:2 is a summary of the dynamic between LAW, SIN, and DEATH that Paul has been developing since Rom. 6. There is no reason to interpret LAW as a "principle" or anything other than Torah in light of the themes of the previous chapters.”
The problem for the reader is the equivocation in the context. If you draw upon the last few verses of chapter 7 to explain the phrase “law of sin and death,” Paul seems to be talking about carnality. If you look at the verses just after he uses this phrase, he seems to be talking about the Torah. I choose the latter because in 2 Corinthians 3:7 Paul refers to the Torah as the “ministration of death.”
Scout
BP8 4:33 wrote, “When he quoted it back he failed to provide the scriptural references I provided. If everyone here will just look up and read Hebrews 8:10”
I will have a look at Hebrews 8:10. This cites a passage from Jeremiah. Jeremiah uses the term Torah for law. But Jeremiah was not the final word on this. In fact, the author of Hebrews writes in 7:12, “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” So, we know from this that Jeremiah’s Torah will not fly. That means your statement that the Torah will be exhaustively written on the hearts of Christians will not fly. We must then look to the New Testament to find the update to Hebrews 8:10 and to discover what is written on the hearts of Christians
You wrote, “Also, Paul opposed the circumcision party because they falsely believed the Gentiles needed to be physically circumcised in order to be saved”
The Circumcision Party said more than that. They said that followers of Jesus had to keep the Law of Moses (the Torah) to be saved. The question is if the entire Law of Moses was written on the hearts of the followers of Jesus and Christian theology asserted that fact, then why were the Pharisees of the Circumcision Party in such a huff?
You wrote, “As far as Armstrong's mini-torah goes, who cares. It adds nothing to the conversation.”
It is pivotal to the conversation. You maintain that the Torah is exhaustively written on the hearts of people just as the Armstrongists do. My guess is that you got that idea from association with the WCG and, further, the Armstrongists do not keep the Torah. To clarify, the people who taught you the idea that the Torah is written exhaustively on the heart, do not themselves observe the full Torah. They observe select parts of it. A mini-Torah. And the laws in the mini-Torah itself are often soft-pedaled. Like staying in as nice a hotel as your second tithe will allow rather than staying in a brush arbor. If you are an Armstrongist or BP8, the brush arbor is written on your heart.
Scout
I said I was going to quit. This will be the last of it. I am sure we will wrangle again.
BP8, Wednesday, July 22, 2026 at 11:45:00 AM PDT, wrote a comment, which I agree mostly with, but will make additional comment using double [[brackets]] as constructive criticism:
"......Through Christ's death and resurrection, believers are released from the law (7:4-6), which means freedom from the law's power to hold us captive to sin......
[[That is not wholly true, because let's assume you and Scout both have God's Spirit. You both, me included, still have sin in our lives. Jesus Christ was the only sinless human being so far. We are to be freed from sin, because Satan will not be allowed to keep us in the grave: death those wages of sin.]]
......Romans 6-8 is the crown jewel of the Gospel and Pauline theology. Its main thrust is OUR transformation from a carnal orientation (which is not subject to God's law), to a spiritual orientation (that delights in the law), and the service that flows from each. Its focus is a change from human nature to the divine, not a different package of laws, which is totally immaterial.
[[None of us has a divine nature at this time. Human nature was/is "very good." Genesis 1:31 states it so. That came from God. Satan is the cause of the carnal nature (I John 3:8, e.g. :12; Eph 2:2; James 4:5; Rom 7:17, 20). Let's assume you and Scout have God's Spirit. Do you still have sin in your/our lives? Yes, and this has nothing to do with any historical record.]]
...The conclusion to chapter 7 and the theme of the entire book is, " who shall save me from the body of this death?" Jesus Christ of course, for He is the author and finisher of our transformation and orientation, which is what Romans 6-8 is really about. So Paul thanks God through Jesus Christ our Lord. And "with the mind I myself serve (in newness of spirit) the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin (7:25)"
[[Paul, a long-time Apostle, near the end of his life knew that sin was continuing in his life (Rom 7:17,20), which James understood (James 4:5), that evil was still present with him (Rom 7:21) and that his flesh he still served the law of sin, which is the law of sin and death.
Yes, God gave us a lot of historical record, but hint: God also provided a slain Lamb, and grace via His Spirit (I Cor 8:6).
Will we continue to serve the law of sin, the law of sin and death?]]
Time will tell...
John
Scout
You are right, it has been fun but this has run its course. But before I go I would like to clear up a few things.
I know that the main emphasis on this site is to bash the Armstrongs and expose their wacky ways. That's fine, that is needed. But my comments are not in defense of the church, nor am I mimicking their stance on the law. Armstrong strained at gnats while swal!owing camels. He had men wearing socks down around their ankles because of mixed fabrics. While he professed to be "spiritual", the primary focus was always on the " physical", external compliance, do's and don'ts.
I have several comments on this post (1014, 1029, 1145, 712) that demonstrates my position and how it differs from the chief apostle. As a summary, I have said that the focus of the NC is not on packages of law, but the new creation in Christ. This is the Gospel. The transformed new man has a new and different orientation toward the law, which is a shift from legalistic obedience to spirit led service and meaning. The carnal mind only considers the "letter", which seems to be what you are always obsessed with. The mind of the spirit is different, for it looks at the one and only law, not in those terms, but asks, what does this mean? for where the letter may only apply to one specific circumstance, the meaning and principle is inexhaustible.
The classic illustration that summarizes my position (and one you continue to ignore) is Paul's first letter to the Corinthians chapter 9. Paul uses the " ox" to demonstrate a spiritual principle that he fully expected the Gentile Corinthians to acknowledge. Quoting from the Torah (which is not dead, abolished, or ceased to exist) he asks, "does God care for oxen"? Does God care about brush arbors? The carnal mind would say, yes, we must do that, but the mind of the spirit looks for meaning and intent.
Verse 10, " or saith he it altogether for our sakes"? Wow, the law of Moses speaking to NT believers? That's a revolutionary concept, especially if it no longer exists.
While the carnal man would be sure to feed his ox, some wouldn't think twice about beating their employees out of their pay. The carnal man would also build a treehouse for the feast and not have the slightest reckoning as to why. Is this God's original intent, or is He using this as an example to show that the carnal mind is not subject to His holy law, and neither can be?
The new man now has a different focus. He delights in the law, sees the big picture, and understands the weightier matters of the law. He now sees the law as God does and intended, and his walk reflects that.
The 1 Corinthians example demonstrates once and for all that ALL of God's LAWS ( including Torah) are being written upon the hearts of believers according to God's promises concerning the NC (Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 11,36, Hebrews 8-10). We may not fully understand it but both testaments confirm it, and it can not be dismissed by any kind of "semantics" we invent.
The Holy spirit is our guide and our walk in newness of life, which far supersedes the do's and don't of Armstrong and the Pharisees. Romans 8:4 concludes by saying that "the righteous requirements of the one and only law (both the letter and spirit) might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the orientation of the flesh but after the orientation of the spirit". This is how I see it, and we both know it is a far cry from Armstrongism.
John time will tell 713
We obviously see a few things differently, but overall you are right, Christians still have struggles with the flesh, sin, the world and the evil one. Although through much tribulation we enter into the kingdom of God, the Bible does give encouragement and offers many remedies to deal with these conflicts.
1. Walk in the spirit.
2. Resist the devil
3. Love not the world
4. Put on the whole armour of God
5. 7 days shall you eat unleavened bread! (what ? ?)
Number 1 is , walk in the spirit and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh (Gal.5:16). The importance of the spirit can not be underestimated. It is the gift of God, the spirit of power, love, and a sound mind (2 Tim.1:6-7). It is the spirit of promise, wisdom and understanding (Eph. 1:13-17). It is Christ in us and we in Him, which yields the fruit of the attributes of God's nature (John 15:4-5, Gal.5:22-23). Possessing the spirit is to posses the "mind of Christ", which is also called " the divine nature" (1 Cor.2:16, Phil.1:5, 2 Peter 1:3-4).
These struggles with the flesh, the world and the evil one should not startle the Christian for they art part of our growth process called "sanctification", the second phase of the salvation process, where Christ lives in us and is being FORMED in us (Gal.2:20, 4:19). This transition is revealed in 2 Cor.4:16, where it is written, " for though the outward man perish, the new man is renewed day by day".
This daily renewal is a key point. To reap of the spirit one must sow to the spirit and not to the flesh. And in doing so, the inner man is renewed and fed on a daily basis, which is what the days of unleavened bread are really about. Christ is that food that sustains our spiritual walk. He is the bread of life. He that continually feeds on Him shall live forever (John 6:54-58).
These struggles are necessary but one day they will end. At the resurrection at Christ's coming, "this corruption shall put on incorruption and this mortal shall put on immortality, and we then shall put on the image of the heavenly (1 Cor.15:48-54).
The Holy spirit makes this all possible. It is the down payment to these glorious promises, gives power to resist and overcome, and blesses us with the mind of Christ to face whatever struggles we may face.
Within your comment you have focused on Christian struggles, works of the spirit vs. works of the flesh, and concluded by saying: “The Holy spirit makes this all possible. It is the down payment to these glorious promises, gives power to resist and overcome, and blesses us with the mind of Christ to face whatever struggles we may face.”
Yes, God’s Spirit makes that all possible, but more important is Jesus’ God: His Father, who is the One who uses that Spirit to fulfill His Will, His purposes:
“…Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.” Zech 4:6
Yes, the importance of God’s Spirit cannot be underestimated; however, neither should the importance of Jesus’ God, His/our Father.
All glory, honor and praise goes to God the Father, who does such fantastic works, and they are to be remembered.
Once upon a time, Jesus did not take any glory, honor and praise to SELF, and He admitted who was working in His life:
“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” John 5:30
“Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” John 8:28
But, to be more specific, who was doing the works in Jesus’ life?
“Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” John 14:10
Awesome, and it is this God, Jesus’ Father, that accomplishes works in the “rest of the Christians,” and eventually He plans to bless all nations/families.
Yes, Jesus is involved, because God, by His Spirit, has willed to work through His Son:
“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” I Cor 8:6
So, despite Christians going through all sorts of struggles, God is working in every one of them and accomplishing works in them, just like He did similarly with His Son. God understands how to deal with the Christian struggles, and we may thank Him for that.
This is a powerful, loving, Father and if/when He starts a work in a human being He will finish, or complete, it:
“Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:” Philippians 1:6
It is God who is working out His “to will,” and the “to do,” within Christians, said Paul.
“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Phil 2:13
Paul didn’t solely thank Jesus Christ; he thanked Jesus’ Father. And yes, it was through Jesus Christ. You mentioned the mind of Christ. Whose mind was that? He had the mind of the Father, which is a mind we’d all like to have.
“I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” Romans 7:25
If one wants to read about more of God’s involvement in the lives of Christians, the following words are worth reviewing:
Ephesians 2:4 “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
Will the day come when all nations, all families, thank God for His grace and such wonderful blessings?
Time will tell…
John
Post a Comment