The New Deal
by Preston Foster
As a denomination, Seventh-day Adventists may have, mistakenly, made a bad trade. We have held on to the law while leaving grace on the table. We give lip-service to grace, but the truth is we don’t trust it. That leaves us holding onto the law and the Old Covenant. We need something else. We need the (original) New Deal.
Let’s go right to the point.
Within the body of Christ, we (Adventists) have adopted the role of protectors of God’s Holy Sabbath. In anticipation of the prophesied final conflict between the image of the beast — those who enforce worship by tradition and those who worship the Creator God, we have grounded our position regarding the 7th day Sabbath in the presumption that Sabbath worship is ultimately ratified by God’s law, written in stone. We, apparently, believe that we need the law to protect the 7th day Sabbath.
There is good reason to believe that the 7th day Sabbath needs protection. Since the time of Constantine (at least), there has been, among Christians, confusion about what day the Sabbath is, along with the debate about whether the specific day matters at all. The vast majority of Christians (including those who know that the 7th day is the Sabbath) observe Sunday out of tradition. Although this is not to be a point of judgment from those who observe that Sabbath on those who do not, Adventists believe that, at the time immediately preceding the advent of Christ, it will matter — very much.
This law-based focus has led to a heavy emphasis on Sabbath-keeping as a sign of biblical enlightenment, commandment keeping, and as a point of differentiation. To this day, in many Adventist churches, when prompted to repeat our “affirmation of faith,” the congregation responds, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy . . .”
Funny, I always thought our faith was grounded in John 3:16. Really, it isn’t funny at all. It is sad that we so easily discount the most important, act of love, ever. For too many, the law has become the locus of their faith (Galatians 3:12).
What is more important, the tactic of establishing the true Sabbath by use of the Old Covenant law has led us to hold on to both covenants: the Old and the New. From a theological and practical standpoint, that simply cannot work.
Christ’s life and death ushered in the New Covenant and ended the Old (Hebrews 10: 1, 8-10). The New Covenant is defined by both the law of love and salvation by grace through faith. The Old Covenant law remains, defining sin. That law — “the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones” (2 Corinthians 3: 7) — applies to those who chose the way of the world and reject Christ. We who are in Christ are, in the New Covenant, no longer under the law as we have, through His blood, taken on the righteousness of Christ, which was shed for the remission of our sins. As such, the law does not apply to us (Galatians 4: 24-25, 28, 30-31).
When we hold on to both the Old and the New Covenants, we dilute the gospel. Reliance on the law of the Old Covenant is dangerous and burdensome (Galatians 5:4). It, effectively, nullifies Christ’s work on the cross and leads us to a dependence on our own works. By holding on to the Old Covenant, we repeat history — the bad part of it. Like the Pharisees, we seek righteousness through the law and (inadvertently) uphold Moses, not Christ (John 9: 27-28).
For the sake of the Sabbath, we hold on to the law. However, there are plenty of “law-free” reasons to keep the Sabbath. The most obvious reason is that keeping the Sabbath is good for you (Mark 2:27, Hebrews 4:1). Second, as the Sabbath precedes the 10 Commandments (Genesis 2:2-3), its observance is not tied to the either the viability or obsolescence of the law. Another nontrivial point: Jesus kept the Sabbath — although he was continually at odds with the Pharisees about just what that meant (John 9:16 Mark 2: 24-28, Mark 3: 5-6, John 7: 19-24). The New Testament specifies Christ’s intent for the continued observance of the 7th day Sabbath, even after His ascension (Hebrews 4: 4-10). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the 7th day Sabbath is a constant reminder that the God, who created this earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh, is the only one worthy of worship (Revelation 14:7). The Sabbath persists, without the need of laws engraved in stone. So, Sabbath-keeping and the New Covenant are not a mixture of legalism and grace.
The New Covenant is the turning point in the spiritual history of mankind.
Christ’s purpose in His first advent was to live a spotless life — fulfilling the law (as no man had done, perfectly) and, then, to present himself as the sacrificial Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (Matthew 5: 17-18, Luke 24: 44, 46-47). If we take Christ at His word, He came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it. The fulfillment of the law completed the Old Covenant and paved the way for the new, perfect, blood-bought, eternal New Covenant.
The point of the New Covenant is to replace the Old (2 Corinthians 3: 6-7, 11, 13). The New Covenant releases us from the death penalty of the written law, because it was impossible for sinful men, in their own power, to keep (Hebrews 12:20). The New Covenant writes God’s law in our hearts and empowers the Holy Spirit to fulfill the law of love in us (Galatians 2:19-20, Galatians 3:14). Under the New Covenant, even our commandment keeping is motivated by love (John 14:15). In short, our good works are to be motivated by love and our shortcomings are covered by grace.
Ironically, the complete embrace of the New Covenant is the most conservative theological position, as it depends on the Bible to define what the Bible means. Those who cite the writings of Ellen White as the basis of their interpretation of the Bible may, then, wish to consider her words, literally:
“But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms.” TGC, page 595
"Whenever the people of God are growing in grace, they will be constantly obtaining a clearer understanding of His word. They will discern new light and beauty in its sacred truths. This has been true in the history of the church in all ages, and thus will continue to the end. But as real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men satisfied with the light already received from God's word, rest there and discourage any further investigation of the Scriptures. They become conservative, and seek to avoid discussion…When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition, and worship they know not what." (5T pp. 706-707).
The tendency to mix both Old and New Covenants keeps us in the uncomfortable and unnecessary position of rationalizing positions that the Bible (in my opinion) clearly contradicts. For example, the teaching that we, who accept Christ, are still subject to the law, is explicitly refuted in several Bible passages (Romans 2:19-25, Romans 3:19-24, Romans 6:14, Romans 10: 3-4, Galatians 5: 3-4, Galatians 6:14). Some avoid and discount these passages, hoping against hope that they will not be read in context. If these texts are read, they are, too often interpreted with a bias toward the law and against grace. Somehow, grace is positioned as a dangerous notion, to be taken in small doses only. The “spin” used to protect the law drains both power from the gospel of grace and credibility from Adventism itself. If we consider the possibility that these texts mean what they say, our world will be radically changed — for the better.
The New Covenant is good news. It is irresistible (Hebrews 6: 4-5). It is the light burden and the easy yoke (Matthew 11:29-30). It depends on Him, not on us (Romans 5:17, Hebrews 9: 14-15). It is enacted through the Holy Spirit rather than by the works of the law. It is eternal, paid by the blood of the Lamb of God (Hebrews 9: 12, 14-19, Hebrews 10: 9-10, 14). It is simply better (Hebrews 8: 6-7).
The New Deal is liberating — and salvific (Romans 8: 2-4). Who doesn’t want that deal?
The most important part of Sabbathkeeping–it is a symbol of Christ. As we rest on the Sabbath from our labors, we rest in Christ from our works. Sabbath is a symbol that we cannot save ourselves through our works. I heard this idea first from a minister of another church–that Christ had replaced the Sabbath as our rest. But I asked him why wouldn't it be a reminder; he admitted it could be symbolic. I have heard this from Adventists too, but not enough. Sabbath reminds us not just of the creation, but our re-creation in the image of Jesus.
As one evangelist said (Jack Sequeira), the one who worships on Sunday yet has Christ as their rest is keeping the Sabbath more sincerely than the one who keeps the seventh day, yet does not enjoy or understand the rest of Christ. Therefore, the real "seal" of the end-times is not just a day, but Christ Himself. We are sealed in Christ. I think until we understand this truth as Seventh-day Adventists we will have no message on the Sabbath for the rest of the world. Isn't the "third-angel's message" righteousness by faith in verity as one writer called it? It is faith in what Christ has done for us that allows us to rest from our works. Call it the new deal or new covenant, the commandments are written on the heart and have a meaning far beyond a set of rules.
Ella,
I believe you are very much on point. I believe we are sealed (in Christ) by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13), who leads us into all truth.
I have heard other evangelists (Adventist and other Christians) argue that the entire Bible is about Jesus — if we would just see Him. I believe that the point of the Sabbath (in the very last days) is not about the day itself, but about the Man (Revelation 14:7) who sanctified the day. For some reason, we have, too often, lingered on the means to the end and not the end itself.
Preston,
Well said! You are gifted with both clear understanding and a descriptive pen for telling it.
As I read this I thought of Paul's admonition for us to grow beyond the law and no longer be under the "schoolmaster" whose role was to teach us how to live. The difference between keeping the law and living in the Holy Spirit is a question of degrees of separation from God. With the law we have a description of the character of God, but there is a degree of separation between us and God. When we are living in the Holy Spirit our regard for God's character does not change. The difference is the degree of separation is gone. It is like a young person who is physically separated from their lover and communicating by e-mail and tweets. There is love between them, but they are apart. But when they are together there is no longer a need for the e-mails and the tweets show the intimacy of understanding that comes when the separation is gone.
Preston,
Thank you for a very clear explanation of the troubled Adventist message with law and grace. How one can claim to be under the new covenant and yet turn to the old one for doctrine is an impossible situation. Yet how many, after reminded of the NT texts showing that the law has now been replaced by Christ attempt to explain it away, always in an effort to rescue sabbath, which is the sine qua non of Adventism: where would it be without sabbath? When the commandments are spoken of it is always the Fourth, as if the others are minor.
"The tendency to mix both Old and New Covenants keeps us in the uncomfortable and unnecessary position of rationalizing positions that the Bible (in my opinion) clearly contradicts." It will always put Adventism in an uncomfortable position and illogical attempts at rationalizing it will never be sufficient. By continually emphasizing the sabbath, grace is relegated to the back pews.
Perhaps, if we could view the Sabbath as a spiritual discipline like pray, meditation, or fasting, we could embrace the new covenant without fear. Then Sabbath wouldn't be about keeping the law, but about entering God's rest, about fellowship with God.
Thanks Preston for reafirming the "new deal". This is something that has been an onging struggle for us as a movement to come to grips with. As a student many a years ago in Seminary, we worked through systematic theology. A couple of texts that I have yet to hear/find an honest and suitable explaination for come to mind once again whilst reading your article:
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days" (Col 2:16).
And the other:
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Rom 14:5).
I'd be happy to hear anyone's thoughts/reflections on these texts in light of the new convenant deal that Christ initiated and bought with His blood.
Thanks all.
William, I love your analogy regarding separation. For me, the difference between the Old and the New, is, as you point out, under the Old, because of sin, we are estranged from The Father. Under the New, because of Christ's blood sacrifice and the grace of God, we are reconciled to The Father –and at peace with Him.
Elaine, the challenge (and I believe the blessing) for Adventism is to embrace the New Covenant message of grace. As stated, I believe we have hold grace at a distance in order to protect the Sabbath with the authority of the law. Doing so dilutes the scope and power of the Cross and the liberty that is available through walking in the Spirit.
Kevin, a "New Covenant" approach to Sabbath-keeping might enable a "thou SHALT" approach to the blessings of the Sabbath. Imagine that!
Matt, buckle up. I, too, hope to hear an honest discussion about these and other issues. Hopefully, the discussion can stay focused on the ISSUE(S). We'll see.
Thanks again, to all of you, for your encouragement.
We should not expect those texts to be discussed openly at either the seminary or at church. They are far too controversial and the contrived explanation often is an attempt to either cause more confusion or obfuscation. Never, in all my 70 years in Adventism have those texts been used in a Bible class or sermon. It is embarrasing for a theologian to be confronted with those texts and mumble and stumble in some rationalization why they don't really mean what they say.
Is there a theologian among these bloggers who will take the challenge to explain, what appears to be clear meanings of these texts?
How many Adventists have too late realized these texts were even in the Bible and lost faith in Adventism because these were ignored when they should have been primary?
Preston, you make a few errors in your article.
1 .The Sabbath is established in the 10 commandments, not the Old Covenant.
2 The New Covenant does not do away with the law. What does the new covenant say? "I will write my LAWS in their minds". In other words, I will change their way of thinking so that they obey my law without even thinking about it. You don't have to prove you are not a legalist, or a NewCovenanter, by breaking the law (or ignoring it).
And you forget there is more than one law.
Methinks you have been reading/listening to too many evangelicals.
There is nothing wrong with Adventist theology on this matter. It is watertight.
Pagophilus,
Such arguments as you are pursuing totally miss the objective of the New Covenant. It has nothing to do with questions of ceremonial law vs. ten commandment law, how many times the law was given to man, or whatever other legalistic points you want to put into it. Instead, it is all about us growing into the relationship God wants to have with us by putting the Holy Spirit in each of us to teach, guide and empower us. When we embrace and accept that relationship the arguments you raise become moot because obedience to God becomes as natural as breathing. We no longer have to look at a written law because God is in us and guiding us to keep us from going astray. What is more, that relationship is so precious to us that we are horrified by the possibility of endangering it through disobeying our dearest friend.
Please provide the texts showing there is more than one law. Is there ever a distinction in the Bible indicating two laws?
If there is only the difference between the two covenants ("I will write my Laws in their minds") that is no difference at all, as the Jews carried many of these laws in their minds already, and nothing new was added, according to this claim.
The New Covenant made the Old one obsolete, and what is obsolete is dying. Christ replaced the Law. The new Christians were never expected to abide by the Old covenant laws; the Old Covenant was made ONLY with the Jews, no one else. It cannot apply to Christians.
This is NOT from evangelicals, but from a clear reading of Paul's letters–the only ones addressed to Christians.
Are you contending that there is no difference in the Covenant made with Jews and Christians? Are Christians and Jews all alike? If Christians accept Christ, which the Jews did not, why are Christians expected to return to Judaism's laws and practices, all described in minute detail in the Torah? Do any apply to Christians today? Some? Which ones? What criteria is applied to select those?
pegaohilus,
Perhaps it is your assumptions about what I am saying that has you seeing error. The article says:
– "The Old Covenant law remains, defining sin."
– "The New Covenant writes God’s law in our hearts and empowers the Holy Spirit to fulfill the law of love in us (Galatians 2:19-20, Galatians 3:14)."
You are in error about the establishment of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was NOT established in the 10 Commandments. That is a bad tradition that CAUSES us to lean on the law to protect it. The Sabbath was established at creation (Genesis 2:1-2). In the 10 Commandments, we are reminded (and commanded) to remember the Sabbath (the 10th paragraph of the article outlines other reasons to keep the Sabbath).
The premise of the article is not that there is only one law. The premise is that we (Adventists) tend to hold onto the Old Covenant law in order to establish and protect the Sabbath. Doing so, inadvertently dilutes the New Covenant, as it requires a dependence on what was done away (2 Corinthians 3: 6-7, 11, 13).
No one has advocated or even hinted that it is okay to break the law (why does that assumption work its way into every discussion on grace — perhaps to protect the law?), Romans 6: 1-2.
The point is that the New Deal commandment is the law of love, not the ministration of death written in stones. The Bible says that keeping the law of love fulfills the whole law (Luke 10:25-28, Galatians 5:14). The specific point of the article is that the Sabbath persists, even without the law of the Old Covenant. The greater point is that, in the New Deal, if we are in Christ, we are under grace not law. (Romans 2:19-25, Romans 3:19-24, Romans 6:14, Romans 10: 3-4, Galatians 5: 3-4).
Grace should not to be discounted. It is free, but not cheap. It cost the blood of the Lamb of God and the love of The Father.
Me thinks I have been reading The Word.
Yes, the Sabbath was established at creation, but it was spelled out in the Ten Commandments.
Preston, you're inventing some airy-fairy and vague concepts here just like you did in your previous "nailed to the cross" article. Just like your reasoning that the law can somehow be nailed to the cross and yet still relevant, this time you maintain that the Holy Spirit fulfills the law of love in us. The law is not there to be fulfilled, it is there to be obeyed.
And where do you get this concept of the old covenant law? There is only the one law, God's law. It is composed of many parts. The old covenant was "we will keep all your laws" and they failed. The new covenant is "I will write the law in your hearts). Part of the law was fulfilled in Christ, pointing forward to all He would accomplish and His death, and therefore abolished in His death. It was to be kept until the time of the death of Christ, and Christ kept it until He died. The rest of the law stands just like it always had. The old and new covenants do nothing to the law. The law is and has always been and always will be the same.
Adventists don't establish the Sabbath on the old covenant. We establish it on God's law, because God said that it is His day and we should keep it holy. It is a mark of our acceptance of His authority, because otherwise there is nothing that differentiates the Sabbath from any other day. The only reason to keep the Sabbath is because God said so. There may be other benefits to it, but the reason we do it is because God said. That goes for many other things, some which we understand and some we don't, but we accept that God knows all and knows what is best even if we don't understand. This is faith.
Oh, by the way, when the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he must do to be saved, Jesus replied "Keep the commandments". He wasn't being sarcastic in His comment and of course, more was to follow. But we should remember His response as an antidote to too much New Theology.
Is it blasphemy to wonder who stood by taking notes when the literal 24 hour/day creation week occurred? Is it, therefore, unreasonable to wonder who eventually learned to write, and inscribed those verbal legends on clay? When the 4th Commandment was delivered, was it not to the Jews? Perhaps it should read: "Six days shalt the world labor, and do all its' work." I'm not anti-Shabbat…I've marveled at watching Jews observing the Hebrew Day of Rest in Jerusalem.
I once worked in a mission field at which a Loma Linda doctor was criticized when her laundry was seen on the line Sabbath morning. She had been performing a series of life saving procedures in the hospital at Friday sundown, and most of the night as well. She'd have been deemed just as guilty if she'd attempted to retrieve the clothes next morning. Reminded me of Yeshua daring to 'reap' a few kernels of grain on Shabbat. Is this sort of thing really necessary?
Yes, the Sabbath was established at creation, but it was spelled out in the Ten Commandments.
Preston, you're inventing some airy-fairy and vague concepts here just like you did in your previous "nailed to the cross" article. Just like your reasoning that the law can somehow be nailed to the cross and yet still relevant, this time you maintain that the Holy Spirit fulfills the law of love in us. The law is not there to be fulfilled, it is there to be obeyed.
And where do you get this concept of the old covenant law? There is only the one law, God's law. It is composed of many parts. The old covenant was "we will keep all your laws" and they failed. The new covenant is "I will write the law in your hearts). Part of the law was fulfilled in Christ, pointing forward to all He would accomplish and His death, and therefore abolished in His death. It was to be kept until the time of the death of Christ, and Christ kept it until He died. The rest of the law stands just like it always had. The old and new covenants do nothing to the law. The law is and has always been and always will be the same.
Adventists don't establish the Sabbath on the old covenant. We establish it on God's law, because God said that it is His day and we should keep it holy. It is a mark of our acceptance of His authority, because otherwise there is nothing that differentiates the Sabbath from any other day. The only reason to keep the Sabbath is because God said so. There may be other benefits to it, but the reason we do it is because God said. That goes for many other things, some which we understand and some we don't, but we accept that God knows all and knows what is best even if we don't understand. This is faith.
Oh, by the way, when the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he must do to be saved, Jesus replied "Keep the commandments". He wasn't being sarcastic in His comment and of course, more was to follow. But we should remember His response as an antidote to too much New Theology.
This is where your responding to a stereotype and and presumptions will have to confront the reality of what is actually written. I have (again) supplied texts to support what I am saying.
Somehow, you seem to think that I am anti-Sabbath keeping. I am manifestly "pro-Sabbath" as, I agree, in the end times, it will be a symbol of our alligence to the Creator God. I wrote this article, in part, to show that Sabbath-keeping both preceded the Old Covenant law and persists in under the New Covenant (thus the listing of "law-free" reasons to keep the Sabbath).
Why is this necessary? Because the New Covenant makes it clear that, in Christ, we are not under the law and that establishing the Sabbath to the law-only actually jeopardizes it (in theological terms).
The Bible says that by no works of the law shall a man be justified. So, I disagree with you. The purpose of the law is not obedience (Romans 2: 18-23), but to show us our need for a Savior and grace (Romans 3:20-22). By sinning (Romans 3:23), we have demonstrated that we cannot keep the law (Romans 3: 9-10), thus the need for Christ, His sacrifice, and God's grace. We can only approach living a sinless life through the power of the Holy Spirit and Christ living in us (Romans 7:19-25, Romans 8:1-2).
Regarding the "two (versions of) laws," I am simply referring to the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) of the Old Covenant and the Christ's Law of Love (Matthew 22: 37-40). If you don't believe the 10 commandments are part of the Old Covenant, you may want to re-read Exodus 34:28-29. Christ gave a "new commandment" (John 13:34-35) which is the law of love. The 10 Commandments and the Law of Love are not in conflict, as they both reflect the will of The Father. However, it is the Old Covenant Law that Christ came to keep (because no man could keep it perfectly), ushering in the New Covenant. When Christ said, "If ye love me, keep MY commandments" He was referring to the law of love — the new commandment He gave.
The law of the Old Covenant has been "done away" (not voided, as it applies to those who reject Christ) for believers and followers of Christ (2 Corinthians 3: 11 KJV). The Bible says that the "ministration of death written and engraved in stones . . . which glory was to be done away," and "For if that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious," 2 Corinthians 3:6-7, 11. Verse 14 says, "But their minds were blinded: for unto this day remaineth the same veil, untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart, Galatians 3: 24, 30-31 again, specifically mentions Mount Sinai "which genderth to bondage." Under the New Deal, we are instructed to cast out the bondwoman and her son . . . we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."
Again, I am not advocating lawlessness. I am advocating Bible-based freedom in Christ — which cannot be at odds with God's law (Galatians 5:1). If, under the New Covenant, the law is written on our hearts, why is their need for the "ministration of death, written and engraved in stones?" (2 Corinthians 3:6-7)
Why is this necessary? Because the New Covenant make it clear that, in Christ, we are not under the law and that tying the Sabbath to the law-only actually jeapordizes it (in theological terms).
The Bible says that by no works of the law shall a man be justified. So, I disagree with you. The purpose of the law is not obedience (Romans 2: 18-23), but to show us our need for a Savior and grace (Romans 3:20-22). By sinning (Romans 3:23), we have demonstrated that we cannot keep the law (Romans 3: 9-10), thus the need for Christ, His sacrifice, and God's grace. We can only approach living a sinless life through the power of the Holy Spirit and Christ living in us (Romans 7:19-25, Romans 8:1-2, Galatians 3:5).
Our church has partially grounded our beliefs in the Old Covenant.
I do not disagree that God's law is binding on those who are not covered by Christ's blood. But the definition of salvation is Christ's blood covering our sins (the breaking of the God's law). Christ kept and fulfilled the Old Covenant law, making our salvation possible. It is by His works, not our own (i.e., obedience to the law), that we are saved. His grace saves us. We can only be obedient to His Spirit (Galatians 5:18, 22-25).
I could disagree not with you more. You say, "The only reason to keep the Sabbath is because God said so. There may be other benefits to it, but the reason we do it is because God said. That goes for many other things, some which we understand and some we don't, but we accept that God knows all and knows what is best even if we don't understand. This is faith."
It is the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Deal. The Old is (flawed) obedience because "God said so." The New Covenant is obedience to the God out of gratitude and love. Faith says that Jesus died for me and paid for my sins. I accept that gift and, in gratitude and love, live to please Him and love others.
This is faith.
This theology is as old as The Cross.
Preston, you are engaging in double-speak. You want to have obedience without the law. Obedience to what I might ask? (His Spirit I see you have written above. That's very vague. I'm sure the Spirit will remind you of the law if you would be on the edge of committing adultery.) You want to have Sabbath without the law. You want also to still have the law but have it tied to the cross. In other words you want to have the law but not have the law.
Yes, the purpose of the law is to show us our need of a saviour, but it is to be kept. Otherwise it's not a law, it's a pretty poster of a motivational saying on the wall.
The Old Covenant wasn't flawed. God does not enter into flawed covenants. The covenant was broken because the people did not fulfill their part.
Not being under the law does not mean not being subject to the law. Otherwise I can go and do what I want. It has much more to do with not being subject to its penalties because Jesus paid the penalty that the law prescribed.
God's law is binding to all, including those covered by Christ's blood, except that those who are covered by Christ's blood are not subject to the law's penalties. Otherwise those covered by Christ's blood can go and do as they please. And then they would be lawless.
You cannot have it both ways. One of the reasons the Seventh-Day Adventist church was called into being was to draw attention to God's law which had been neglected for centuries.
What I'm not saying is that we are saved by keeping the law. We are not. But the law stands and we are subject to its requirements, whether we are covered by Christ's blood or not.
pagophilus,
I must say to you, as I have to Preston, it's the terminology, not the concepts that is somewhat problematic.
Whether you know it or not, your making Preston's point in real time about our penchant as SDA's to defend the law at all cost… especially grace. Where does it say in the NT that we are bound by God's law as Christians? How would you explain what Paul means about not "being under the law, but under grace?" Romans 6:14 Or, to be "dead to the law… set free from the law?" How about, "what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God in sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law, might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." Romans 8:3.4 What is Paul saying? He is definately not saying that we are bound to the law?
If Christ paid the penalty for the broken law, the death sentence has been rendered, by accepting Christ's death as your death, the law has nothing else against you. Now here is where Preston's terminology gets sticky, at least to me. Yes we are no longer under grace, but under sin, but what does that mean? When you sin, if you are bound by the law, under it, you must pay the penalty that the law requires… death? Why are you still here to post on AToday. Because by the grace of Christ, he bears that which you should have suffered instead of you. It's true, the law (as the Holy Spirit's tool) still convicts the believer of sin under the New Deal (Covenant), and we must still confess / repent of the sin. But we have not lost our justification / redemption / salvation… That does not mean that a life of abject lawlessness will not lead one to perdition, it surely will. But grace is God's given means to establish the law of love / liberty in the heart / mind / experience of those who have chosen to follow Him. Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:13.14.22-24; 1 Timothy 1:5
You want to talk about double speak: "What I'm not saying is that we are saved by keeping the law. We are not. But the law stands and we are subject to its requirements, whether we are covered by Christ's blood or not." What part does grace play in your scenario here? Cut it any way you want… salvation is based on obedience, because if you disobey, your lost… that's the only implication I can draw here. This is the double speak that has caused SDA's for decades more problems in house then you can begin to imagine.
It's only by walking in the Spirit, by the grace of God, that you cannot honor God and His law while escaping the corruptions that is in the world thru lust. Galatians 5:16 New Testament law keeping is a matter of motavation / the heart… not performance… to say otherwise is to find oneself in the same situation the Galatians were in; "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?" (Galatians 5:4-7 ESV)
The issue is obeying the truth. Romans 6:17-22 Being a slave to God is tantamount to law keeping… Genuine NT faith is accepted as obedience.
pagophilus,
I must say to you, as I have to Preston, it's the terminology, not the concepts that is somewhat problematic.
Whether you know it or not, your making Preston's point in real time about our penchant as SDA's to defend the law at all cost… especially grace. Where does it say in the NT that we are bound by God's law as Christians? How would you explain what Paul means about not "being under the law, but under grace?" Romans 6:14 Or, to be "dead to the law… set free from the law?" How about, "what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God in sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law, might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." Romans 8:3.4 What is Paul saying? He is definately not saying that we are bound to the law?
If Christ paid the penalty for the broken law, the death sentence has been rendered, by accepting Christ's death as your death, the law has nothing else against you. Now here is where Preston's terminology gets sticky, at least to me. Yes we are no longer under grace, but under sin, but what does that mean? When you sin, if you are bound by the law, under it, you must pay the penalty that the law requires… death? Why are you still here to post on AToday. Because by the grace of Christ, he bears that which you should have suffered instead of you. It's true, the law (as the Holy Spirit's tool) still convicts the believer of sin under the New Deal (Covenant), and we must still confess / repent of the sin. But we have not lost our justification / redemption / salvation… That does not mean that a life of abject lawlessness will not lead one to perdition, it surely will. But grace is God's given means to establish the law of love / liberty in the heart / mind / experience of those who have chosen to follow Him. Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:13.14.22-24; 1 Timothy 1:5
You want to talk about double speak: "What I'm not saying is that we are saved by keeping the law. We are not. But the law stands and we are subject to its requirements, whether we are covered by Christ's blood or not." What part does grace play in your scenario here? Cut it any way you want… salvation is based on obedience, because if you disobey, your lost… that's the only implication I can draw here. This is the double speak that has caused SDA's for decades more problems in house then you can begin to imagine.
It's only by walking in the Spirit, by the grace of God, that you cannot honor God and His law while escaping the corruptions that is in the world thru lust. Galatians 5:16 New Testament law keeping is a matter of motavation / the heart… not performance… to say otherwise is to find oneself in the same situation the Galatians were in; "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?" (Galatians 5:4-7 ESV)
The issue is obeying the truth. Romans 6:17-22 Being a slave to God is tantamount to law keeping… Genuine NT faith is accepted as obedience.
A very necessary correction: in the place of Yes we are no longer under grace, but under sin, but what does that mean? It should read Yes we are no longer under law, but under grace…
That's a big ooopppppssssss.
Another oopppssssss.
It's only by walking in the Spirit, by the grace of God, that you cannot honor God and His law while escaping the corruptions that is in the world thru lust… should be…
It's only by walking in the Spirit, by the grace of God, that you can honor God and His law while escaping the corruptions that is in the world thru lust.
pegaohilus,
Well, now you are just flat-out unbiblical (I've noticed your opinions are not accompanied by texts to support them).
– You say, "The Old Covenant wasn't flawed. God does not enter into flawed covenants. The covenant was broken because the people did not fulfill their part."
– You say, "You want to have Sabbath without the law."
– Adam had Sabbath without the law, as did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob Enoch, and Noah. Not bad company.
– You say, "Not being under the law does not mean not being subject to the law. Otherwise I can go and do what I want."
– The Bible says, "But if ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law, " Galatians 5:18 KJV. If I am led by the Spirit, I will do what as the Spirit leads. That can never be in conflict with God's law, written on my heart.
– You say, "You want to have obedience without the law. Obedience to what I might ask? His Spirit I see you have written above. That's very vague. I'm sure the Spirit will remind you of the law if you would be on the edge of committing adultery."
– Christ says, "How be it when he the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth," John 16:13 KJV. If Christ said the Holy Spirit will guide us into ALL truth, is that vague? It is only vague if you do not have a relationship with the Holy Spirit and are not led by Him. The Bible says, "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shout up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by faith. But after faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Galatians 3: 23-25 KJV.
– You say, "You want to have obedience without the law. Obedience to what I might ask?"
– The Bible says, "And behold as certain lawyer stood up and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, 'What is written in the law? How readest thou?' And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart and with all thy strength and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thy self. And he (Jesus) said unto him, "Thou hast answered right: do this and thou shalt live," Luke 10: 25-28. Our obedience, in the New Covenant, is to the law of love, to the Holy Spirit, and to the laws written on our hearts. None of this is in conflict with the 10 commandments, but it is under a better covenant (of grace).
– Finally, you say, "But the law stands and we are subject to its requirements, whether we are covered by Christ's blood or not."
– Again, the Bible says, "But if ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law," Galatians 5:18.
I believe the Bible.
Preston wrote: – The Bible says "For if the first covenant have been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault in them he saith, 'Behold the days come," saith the Lord, 'when I shall make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
Did you notice it said "finding fault with them" (the people), not the covenant nor the law? That's what made the old covenant unacceptable. Not that God imposed a faulty covenant on them but not on us.
Preston wrote: The Bible says, "But if ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law, " Galatians 5:18 KJV. If I am led by the Spirit, I will do what as the Spirit leads. That can never be in conflict with God's law, written on my heart.
And what does it say in Romans 6:14,15? 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
And what is the definition of sin? 1 John 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
And that is better stated in the King James: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Sorry Preston, you can never remove keeping the law from living a life in Christ, nor from the Adventist faith.
Preston Says: Adam had Sabbath without the law, as did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob Enoch, and Noah. Not bad company.
So which law was it that Abraham kept in Genesis 26:5 "because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws."?
The law existed from the beginning. And the law is a transcript of God's character. I'm sure you can find the quote to match that assertion. (I don't quote many Bible texts because I usually squeeze a response in between waking up and going to work, or just before bed, and with an 8-month old child and a garden to look after and other responsibilities I don't have time for lengthy preparation (and I don't have scripture well-memorized).)
For people who are led by the Spirit (ie Adam before the fall) and who do not have a tendency to sin, you do not need to spell it out to them. Like with little children who are "innocent", you do not need to tell your 1 year old child "do not murder" because the tendency to do it is not there. But when the tendency is there, the law needs to be spelled out.
If it really was as simple as accepting Christ and living by the Spirit, why have the thousand plus pages of scripture. Maybe it's because we need an explanation of what accepting Christ and living by the Spirit really means in practice.
The other thing you are forgetting is the distinction between the ceremonial law and the moral law (10 commandments). This distinction becomes clear in context. For example Colossians 2:14, the handwriting of ordinances being against us, having its parallel text in Deuteronomy 31:24-26 24 It came about, when Moses finished writing the words of this law in a book until they were complete, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, 26 “Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may remain there as a witness against you.
Here you have a handwriting (Moses' book) of laws (ordinances) being a witness against the people.
In other parts of the NT this distinction also becomes clear through reading the context, but you probably don't see it that way. In fact, in Colossians 2:14 you probably read it as a certificate of debt rather than the plain reading.
It is this unwillingness to read what is plainly there and a willingness to see what you want to see that is causing you to fulfill the text in Mark 4:12 "so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN.”
Keeping the law does not save us but breaking the law (and not repenting nor overcoming) will surely condemn us. No amount of law keeping will save us. Only Christ can save us through what He did. But He is not going to save unrepentant sinners. And sin is defined by the law (the mirror).
There's a paragraph on someone's website which make it quite clear: Think about it this way; Say you were found guilty of murdering someone, and the law of the land sentenced you to death. Can you "work" your way to freedom? No, because you are under the law and it demands your life. The only way you can be free, is if a judge has compassion on you and pardons you. Let's say that happens; A judge comes along and pardons you. You are now under grace and no longer under the law, which demanded your life. You are free!! Now, do you leave thinking, "I'm free!! I found grace with the judge, I'm free to go and commit more crimes, because I'm now under grace, not under the law!" Of course not. Any person with an ounce of gratitude would now go and KEEP the law the best they could. And anyway, does the law of the land now become void because you found grace from the judge? No, the law still stands. Do you see this truth with regards to being under grace, not under law?
Read the whole Bible in context, and remember Peter's statement in 2 Peter 3:16 that "His (Paul's) letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
pegophilus,
I will say this and leave it there for you and others to consider, as, obviously, we simply disagree.
"Preston wrote: – The Bible says "For if the first covenant have been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault in them he saith, 'Behold the days come," saith the Lord, 'when I shall make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,'" Hebrews 8: 7-10, 13 KJV.
– Either you are in denial, or you are not reading this objectively. It simply does not say what you says — or want it to say. It is a simple sentence with a specific subject — the (first) covenant: "For if the first covenant have been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." The reason given for the second covenant was that there was fault found with the first — simple sentence. The fault with the first covenant was that it did not completely make provision for the pervasive faults of the people. The first covenant, paid for with the blood of animals, provided temporary forgiveness for past sins of men, and, significantly, provided no grace — even for a faulty priest, who was interceding for the sinner(s). The New Covenant provided a perfect Lamb of God who paid for the sins of the world — once and for all (Hebrews 10: 9-10).
– pegophilus writes: "So which law was it that Abraham kept in Genesis 26:5 'because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.'?"
– Abraham was operating in faith (Romans 3: 6-10, Hebrews 11: 8, 17) — being led by the Spirit, who led him to do the will of God — without a written law. Walking in the Spirit is not "new theology," it is God's preference for communion with us. The law is intended to be a temporary substitute to bring us into communion with Christ (Galatians 3: 24-25).
By the way, since you are very conscious of the condemnation of sin by the law, you may want to consider these texts as well:
– "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain," Galatians 2:21.
– "For the promise that he should be heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness by faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise of none effect," Romans 4: 13, 14 KJV.
– "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? Christ is become of no effect to you, whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace," Galatians 4:21, Galatians 5:4.
– Ephesians 2:14-16
– Philippians 3:6-9
– Titus 3:5
Try to remember, being led by the Spirit, not by law, in no way equates or even approaches lawlessness. Assuming you are married, are you faithful to your wife only because adultery is wrong and illegal? No. You have no desire to hurt her and want to be with no one else. In other words you love her. Doing what she wants, even if not your natural inclination, comes easily and naturally. Knowing her, you anticipate her desires and, if you get it wrong, you apologize and quickly pivot to a place that makes her happy.
If we are led by the Spirit, we have similar motives. The law is not our motivation. Love leads us to live consistently with the law. But, even more than your wife gives you, God gives us grace to cover our shortcomings, which (as our wives will attest), despite our best efforts, are many.
I implore you to search the Scriptures in prayer. As we cannot be saved by the works of the law (Galatians 2:16) and we are saved by grace (Galatians 2:21), I ask you to consider the blessings and freedoms God has provided to us (Galatians 5:1).
Finally, I will be obedient to The Word: "Avoid . . . contentions and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain," Titus 3:9.
Peace, grace, and blessings.
CORRECTION: The first reference to Abraham's faith provided wrong text reference. The correct reference is Galatians 3: 6-11.
Preston,
I dare say you have heard it said that there are those who are "glutton's for punishement." I really do appreciate what you are setting forth… but you have surely put your self in a targeted position to say the least.
I'm not sure that I can wholly agree with the Old Covenant Law vs the New Deal (Covenant) Law as though they are inherently different. In my understanding the law is the same, it's just that the Old Covenant / New Deal motivations are not only vastly different, but irreconcilable. And I believe you illustrate my point in your statement about SDA's seeking to defend the law, while giving maybe a little more then lip service to grace, yet always leary and paranoid when the subject of the grace of God that brings salvation to all men is brought forth, yes we have been guilty of that. For some reason we are afraid that grace will lead us to perdition, when Paul says that grace teaches us to say no to ungodliness. Go figure.
Why on earth we are afraid of not being under the law, but under grace is a head scatcher to say the least. To be under law is to be under guilt / condemnation / the curse, with no way out… apart from grace. And why it is hard for us to get a hold of the fact that grace does not free us to do as we please, but is the heavenly means of writing the law upon our hearts as a practical means of experiencing what it means to be godly / loving / lawful people is equally puzzling.
As Sis White put it… the law is the gospel of Christ veiled, and the gospel of Jesus is nothing more or less then the law defined, showing it's far reaching principle. (RH 5/27/1890)
Brother Preston,
In this new deal you so enticingly package and offer in this blog, (which I must say is done in incredible style befitting a true marketing pro), I have a question which came to mind when reading this mega Grace blog which seems to be ‘part two’ of your ‘nailed to the cross' blog. For that I give you credit Sir: Grace in Jesus Christ is a real big deal. So here's my question regarding the deal you have posed: "Where does obedience fit in?". In Gen 4:10 we see the promise of Messiah (Shiloh) and the resulting obedience of His people. This was before Sinai. Throughout both the Old and New Testaments wherever Grace is magnified , obedience is a part of this experience of Grace.
Also – if we’re not talking ceremonial laws here are we referring to the Ten Commandments? As you are aware that ‘we’ Seventh-day Adventist’s unambiguously believe that these types, symbols and ceremonies of the ceremonial law were fulfilled in Christ at the Cross. Jesus did say: “I you love me, keep my commandments” which clearly refers to obedience (John 14:15). Then in terms of the ‘Indwelling Christ’ (Gal 2:20) (Rom 8:11) through the ‘Indwelling Holy Spirit’ one is transformed into newness of life because of God’s Grace in Christ (Messiah) (2Cor 3:18, Rom 12:2, 2Cor 11:15, Gal 6:15).
Jesus was obedient Heb 5:8, Rom 5:19 – so too are we in Him 1Pet 1:2 (note in this verse Grace is mentioned as part of obedience in Christ Jesus through His precious blood. Can obedience then be obfuscated by Grace or is it a relative part of this 'experience' God freeely offers which you have nicely packaged on this blog as the 'new deal'?
PS. Pouncing on the Sabbath seems to be a giveaway…and limits the mega-Grace 'new deal' package somewhat, in my humble opinion, Sir.
♥T
Oops – typo first text should be Gen 49:10.
♥T
Brother Trevor,
Thanks for your kind words. I will respond in greater length later on. I just want to clear this up as soon as possible (although laffal's response is very close to what I believe).
You misunderstand my intent and perhaps my words. I am, in no way, "pouncing on the Sabbath," nor giving it away (as it I could!). Rather, I seek to ensure the protection of the Sabbath message by grounding it in both pre-law sanctification (Genesis 2:1-2) and New Testament intent (Hebrews 4: 3-10). In short, the Sabbath is as old as the world we know.
My point is, ironically, we (Adventists) inadvertently jeopardize the (theology of) the Sabbath by grounding it in the law of the Old Covenant (please see my earlier note to "pegolophilus").
Peace.
Treavor,
I may not be speaking for Preston here, but I do believe you've stated the other issue with many of us SDA's when it come to "mega Grace", as mentioned the one is to defend the law and the Sabbath, the other is the big O… obedience.
First of Jesus obedience was as necessary as His death on the cross to meet the demands that God's law had upon us. Matthew 5:17; Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:10.13 Our salvation is not based on our obeying as Christ did. That would minimize what Christ accomplished in His birth / life / death / resurrection as the Savior of all men. John 3:16; 4:42; 1 Timothy 1:15; 4:10; Hebrews 10:11-14; 1 John 2:1.2 As well as we would be found in a long line of those who Paul described as the Judaizers who dogged his steps / efforts to preach the gospel of grace… Romans 5:20.21; Galatians 5:4 And SDA's would be rightly identified as legalists.
There can be no true obedience on our part without the grace of God. Without grace you would not know how to, much less be able to obey God and His law. Titus 2:11-14 "Where does obedience fit it?" Obedience is the response of love born out of a heart of appreciation for what it cost Christ / God to redeem us. John 14:15; 1 John 5:1-3 Genuine obedience is the fruit of a surrendered life to Christ that has the Holy Spirit fulfilling the righteousness of the law thru those who are saved by faith, thru grace. Romans 8:4; Galatians 5:16; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5-8
Bro T., be careful not to pit law agains grace, they are both given by God for the salvation of sinners. That's been an issue since the days of the Apostles, it's nothing new. If you go back and read all that Bro. Preston has been saying, (I personally have bantered with him about some of his terminology) you will not find that he is advocating a disobedient / lawless life for the redeemed believer. Quite the contrary, our brother has been stating that, as does Paul, the Bible teaches that the redeemed Christian (when the gospel is rightly understood) does not have to fear God and His law in terms of our obedience / faithfulness to Him / His law. Luke 1:68-75; Romans 8:12-17; Galatians 4:4-7 Why not? Because the righteousness of Christ as a free gift to all who would receive it is based on Christ's obedience as our representative. The believer is now free to serve God out of love / in the Spirit, and not out of fear / in the letter. Romans 7:4-6; 2 Corinthians 3:4-7 Nor can you show where our brother has clearly stated that grace does away with the Law of God. (read my last post on this blog)
Revelation 14:12 makes it clear that obedience is a sign of those who have the patience / endurance of the saints, but they also have the faith of Jesus… and Jesus Himself said, I can of myself do nothing, it is the Father who does the works in me… John 5:19.30; 14:9-11. And Jesus said… without me you can do nothing… John 15:5. Genuine, Biblical obedience is the fruit of the union between Christ and the believer who is receiving the much more abounding grace then the sin that abounds in the world… it's a co-operative endeavor between the Spirit and the follower of Christ… Grace is not only the unmerited favor of God giving us His Son to save us, it is also the power of God in the life of the believer to do what is pleasing to Him… Mega grace is a great term… Amen
Matt,
As I understand it, what the two texts (Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5) you referenced are saying is that we, as Christians, are never to judge others or to be judged by a day that we observe, or do not observe.
This, of course, has profound religious liberty implications for those of us who take a historically Seventh-day Adventist approach to eschatology. (If we never judge anyone in this regard, we would never advocate or countenance any civil law regarding a day’s observance.)
Preston,
As you know, Trevor’s questions and laffal’s observations with regard to grace are, as usual, nearly identical to mine (“What is ‘this Gospel of the Kingdom’ anyway?”).
Stephen,
I don't understand why this would change our religious liberty position at all. If we hold that the Sabbath was sanctified by the Creator God, codified in the 10 Commandments, persists (per Hebrews 4) even after (arguably) the Old Covenant has passed, and is the conviction of our conscience, why would we hesitate to protest against the state enforcing observance of another day (i.e., Sunday)?
Has any government ever forced, by law, an observance of any holy day?
Elaine if ever you go to Lima Peru, visit the “wax Inquisition Museum”. I remember seen a “wax man” been tortured “ Carbajal HEREJE for keeping the Sabbath” probably this poor man was a Jew that was punished by the inquisition
David, I have been to the Torture Museum in Rothenberg, Germany where many of the torture machines were employed: iron maiden, screws, etc.. These were used by Christians on Christians. When hasn't it occurred? The powerful define "orthodox" and dissenters are "heretics."
BTW, millions have been sent to their death for believing in a religion, but to make a day the center of all persecution is to center everything on the worship of a day. Can a day even be worshiped? Or is the totality of one's personal belief that should be considered? If, as Paul says, we are not to be judged on days, isn't it about declaring that God is our Redeemer? If so, then all Christians who claim the same can not be separated by a day.
Elaine,
Your attempts to avoid the possibility that Christians will again persecute Christians because of the differences of the day observed are fascinatingly obvious because you acknowledge that Christians have a history of persecuting those who have veered from “orthodoxy;” and you have acknowledged the dangers of intolerance. Nevertheless, you go to pains to dismiss any possibility that the doctrinal difference of the day observed (as set apart) could never catalyze such intra-religious persecution in the future.
I digress, of course, because this is besides the point of this particular blog.
Preston,
This may be a “first;” in that you misunderstand me. These texts have religious liberty implications because whenever others are in a position to judge Sabbath-keepers, we can point to these biblical suggestions that Christians should never engage in such activity.
Stephen,
You are right, of course. I only wish/hope that Christians will operate according to The Word.
The record on that is spotty, at best.
Preston,
Amen…
RE this comment above: "Has any government ever forced, by law, an observance of any holy day?"
The US of A perhaps. Trace back the 'blue laws' and you will see…
♥T
State governments have, in the past, prohibited certain businesses from operating on Sunday, but have any forced OBSEVANCE of any day as holy?
There is a great deal of difference. States may force liquor stores not to operate on Sunday, or certain other businesses, but if you can furnish evidence of any U.S. state or government forcing, "by law, an observance" of any day, please do so.
Many in the U.S. have a two-day weekend, but it may be used anyway we choose: church, sports, or other use of free-time.
Eliane,
On the Federal level, Congress, the setting aside of Sunday as a holy day was undertaken in / by the Blair bill in 1888, and once again in 1893 using the World's Fair as the nexus for the bill.
The reason for the defeat of each bill was by enlarge due to the efforts of an Adventist pastor… A.T. Jones who argued the merits of religious liberty before Congress in each case.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. With Adventists and Orthodox Jews and the increased hesitance to allow such laws to reach the people, how might it occur if, particularly the Adventists who are so preprared for such a law, to have one quitely slip through?
Elaine,
Who knows?
You like to read broadly. Might I suggest the book "The Black Swan," which examines the dynamics of the improbable. The premise of the book is that history moves on a slow continuum — until is doesn't. Unforeseen events, that only seem obvious in retrospect (i.e., 9/11 and its aftermath or, if you will, The Flood), move the arc of history in dramatic, inalterable ways.
Things change fast. Ask anyone who's been "renditioned."
Preston, I have not read the book you refer to but am aware of its thesis.
Currently, I am listening to the Teaching Company Lecture on The World's Great Events that Changed History. A fascinating overview of those events and people who dramatically affected our world. Yes, anything is possible; everything is not probable without massive changes in the world as we know it. As for the flood, I do not by any stretch of the imagination believed that it covered "the whole world" as the writers "whole world" as they knew it, encompassed a very small portion of the world in the region of the Tigris and Euphrates.
Far more momentous events than 9/11 have occurred: this century has seen massive earthquakes that killed more than half a million people. It's all relative.
♥T
Trevor,
Here's a little more that may help you understand my concerns.
First, to re-assure you of my motives, I believe the Sabbath is God's sanctified memorial of creation and the coda of creation itself. Further, I believe that, in the very end times, the Sabbath will be an indicator of alignment with and faith in the Creator God, as opposed to the traditions of man and the image or mark of the beast.
I believe that the Adventist reliance on grounding its defense of the Sabbath in the Old Covenant Law (e.g. the 10 Commandments) has led to only a partial embrace of the New Covenant (and a tepid relationship to grace) while causing us desperately hold on to bits of the Old Covenant. More importantly, holding on to the Old Covenant in any way, obscures and minimizes Christ, His sacrifice on the cross, and the grace of God (hence my problem with the 4th commandment being repeated as our "affirmation of faith").
As it is fairly easy for an objective Christian reader to understand that the Old Covenant has been done away, depending on the Old Covenant law only leaves the Sabbath vulnerable to the interpretation of those who take the Bible (when it is being literal) literally.
Establishing the Sabbath as the Bible has — as being the sanctified, crowning act of creation, as being codified in the Old Covenant, as something Jesus observed, as a benefit for man, and as Christ's new testament intention for our worship after His death and ascension, in my mind ELEVATES the Sabbath more than does a simple reliance on the law of the Old Covenant as a raison d'etre.
The point of all of this is, again, that in the New Covenant, our worship and service are to be led by the Spirit and motivated by love. In my opinion, an over-reliance on law has produced, in too many places, its predictable fruit: self- reliance, judgment, bitterness, frustration, and hypocrisy, to name a few. If we learn to walk in the Spirit, He will not lead us contrary to the law, but our works will be seen as selfless, loving, and attractive. And, still, our works righteousness is as filthy rags.
Thus, the desperate need for amazing grace.
Correction: the penultimate sentence should read, "And still, our works OF righteousness ARE as filthy rags."
I just proved it!
Brother Preston
The reason I am cautious when someone brings up BIG Grace is because so many times we tend as sinners to overlook the BIG sin problem which is why we have and need BIG Grace in the first place. I have heard many a person say that ‘as the Spirit moves’ or that when ‘moving in the Spirit’ then we are free which based on their fruits show that they interpret it as free to do as they please. This to me makes it seem as though some may presumptiously do the same that Israel did by adapting the Old Deal by adapting the New Deal – but this side of the Cross. Question is what ‘free’ do they refer to. If they would say free FROM sin then I would easily concur but to say free TO sin as though Grace will just keep covering presumptuous sinning is clearly off the mark. This brings us to the other extreme: cheap grace. We have to acknowledge the fact that the very purpose of both the Old and NEWer Covenants is Messiah. He is the common denominator. “Matt 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” The very name Jesus signifies a Saviour. A Saviour who saves his people FROM sin. Sin is revealed by the Law and therefore the Law has a place in all of this 1John 3:4. This principle is found both in the old and new testament. Law; Sin; Obedience and Righteousness are all integrated into the NEWer Covenent too. Under grace doesn’t mean there is no sin and that is does NOT make void the law Rom 3:31, as you have previously pointed out, (but this seems to now be a virtual law of some sort in this new deal dispensation whilst still based on the written law of some sort). Again, as you mention even in the previous blog, faith does not make void the law. So just how do we define the law? Has it been watered down somewhat (by God) in the new? Is sin not as treacherous and evil as revealed in the Old deal? I also will have to ask also whether Grace is just used by some as an excuse for compromise.
One has to also remember that this article could easily be used by proponents of ‘cheap grace' or ‘presumptuous sinning’ as an alibi or license for reckless sinful living by some saying: “Oh well, Grace is more important. We should focus on the ‘nailed to the cross’ χειρόγραφον cheirographon Col 2:14 imagery rather than the 'If you love me keep my commandments'.” So is what Jesus saying different from what Paul is saying, or are we missing something? John 14:15.
John 14:12,17,21; John 15:10; Rev 12:17; Rev 14:12,13; 1John 2:4,5,6; 1John 5:2’3; John 14:21,23; Matt 19:17,18,19; Dan 9:4; Eccl 12:13,14; 1John 3:4,5,6. So even Jesus mentions the commandments: even some from the Ten. The Old Testament’s distinctive acknowledgment, respect and awe for God’s Law, is not in the least bit lessened in the NEWer covenant which by faith is written on our hearts. The SDA Church too, is full of many who have been saved and are been saved by Grace or the new deal. Just because we uphold the virtue of God’s word as summarized in the Ten, doesn’t and hasn’t lessened our NEWer Deal Grace of which too I (and you) are big recipients of. Praise God! The Law and Grace have their rightful place and they do not cancel each other out as it is Grace that put Jesus on the Cross just as much as the Law did. In my opinion of course.
Furthermore, I would also like to point my view that Grace was always the catalyst in terms of salvation even in the Old Testament AND the Old Covenant too just like in the New, albeit which fulfilled types and symbols in Christ. The Bible nowhere teaches salvation my human works alone. God is always in Christ (Messiah) offering the Promise and heralding the 'Gospel of the Kingdom' throughout the Holy Bible. Noah Gen 6:8-9, Abraham Gen 17:1, David Ps 51:10-11, and then also Zechariah 13:1 which speaks of a fountain for sin and uncleanliness, also pointing towards Messianic Righteousness by Faith. This obviously was God’s intention too in the Old Covenant which was distorted by Israel not seeing this in the types and symbols and ceremonies which by Faith pointed to Messiah. They made this into a burdensome works orientated religion which Jesus abrogated (nailed) at the Cross when He fulfilled the types and symbols and ceremonies which were a representation of Him and nailed them χειρόγραφον cheirographon at the Cross.
♥T
Brother Trevor,
Your concern is valid in the sense that the gospel rightly understood is dangerous from that stand point of overreaching the freedom of Christ to mean we can now do as we please. So many of us Adventists jump on anything that we remotely think to be "once saved, always saved." The problem with this is that we have tended to throw the gospel baby out with the bathwater. And instead of experiencing / demonstrating / witnessing the freedom from sin… we defend doctrine / law / obedience to the extent that we short circuit our own freedom, while retaining some measureable portion of legalism, if only in the terminology of the defense itself.
If we don't learn to read / hear out carefully what one another has to say on these matters, we will continue to exercise ourselves to no real good purpose. Although I do appreciate your explaination of grace here. But we do waste so much time and energy chasing rabbits that really have nothing to do with what is actually being said / meant. It might be a good thing to ask questions pertaining to the articles / statements by which we can futhrer the discussion / understanding together as opposed to ascertions / standoffs that lead us to what?
Just to be clear, I share a great deal of concern with Preston in the point / purpose of his last few posts. We SDA's have any number of in-house issues that need to become clarified so that the necessary understanding and purpose of the gospel of grace may be experienced by all who will. The question is; how do we get there? Imagine what it was like for the disciples in the upper room after the ascension of Christ. I can see them as being brutely honest, yet filled with love for Christ and one another. That's when the unity came… and they were blessed with the out pouring of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord bless us to see / hear / understand / do likewise that we may receive the long awaited blessing.
Peace
Brother Trevor,
In my mind, if someone wants freedom TO sin, clearly, they are not walking in the Spirit. I see our mission less as defenders of the law and more as ambassadors of Christ. In the end, Christ will judge those who abuse the grace He has provided for our salvation. I will leave that to Him.
Grace can be abused. But we are also warned, in many places, about using the law to establish our own righteousness or for "bragging rights," (Ephesians 2:8-9) Dependence on the law can lead us away from dependance on Christ, His righteousness, and His grace.
If we are leading others to Christ, rather than to the law, HE does the work of converting the heart and embruing us with His Spirit.
If the law is written in our hearts as the Word says, it is MORE real than laws written in stone. It is a walk of faith. Abraham was given the promise, through faith from the start (Romans 4:2-13 KJV). We depend on what is written in stone only to be led to Christ. From that point on, we are to be led by His Spirit (Galatians 3:24-25).
Our discomfort with being led by the Spirit was addressed in my earlier article, "What Holy Ghost?" Our discomfort with the concept of not being under the law, I believe, comes from a lack of intimacy with the Holy Ghost which leaves us feeling unmoored and vulnerable to sin — needing the law as our guide. In the New Covenant, the law remains the standard (as it is not made void), but it is not our guide; the Holy Spirit is (Galatians 5:18).
That, I believe, is the difference that is both most clear and most difficult to embrace, as it requires absolute faith ("evidence of things not seen").
We are saved by grace and not works of the law. Our good works are the evidence, the identifiers (the fruit) of our surrender to self and of the righteousness of Christ working in us. In short, our obedience is the end, rather than the means of conversion. The verse that is quoted to make opposing points, if read literally, actually explains "the order of service," if you will: "IF YOU LOVE ME, keep my commandments." Love comes first and is the premise of obedience.
And the law of love is the law of the New Covenant. What would change if we focused on keeping that law? Yes, Christ wanted works ("If ye love me, feed my sheep"). However, he commanded love-based works, in accordance with the new commandment He gave us.
If Christ is in us, and we in Him a change will be evident and convincing to others. That, I believe, is the witness of His Kingdom come to this earth.
I think I get it now…if you want the freedom TO sin and from its penalty, as opposed to freedom FROM sin and from its power, then you are not led by, or walking in, the Spirit; and are under the law.
The freedom from sin and its power is only available by grace through faith; in which case the law is inapplicable.
A few questions for reflection.
1. When Paul wrote about the Old Covenenant at Sinai in Gal 4, was that Covenant primarily the Law? An agreement based on the Law? or both? Are the Law and the Covenant the same, or different? If so, what is the difference?
2. The passage about the Old and New Covenants in Heb 8 quotes from Jer 31:31-34. When Jeremiah wrote that God would write His Law on the hearts of His people, what Law was he talking about?
3. Are the Laws to be written on the heart (Heb 8) different from the Law in Jer 31? If so, what is the evidence, and what is the difference? In Heb 8, do the "laws" to be written on hearts under the New Covenant include the 10 Commandment Law, or are they clearly excluded? Are all included except the fourth?
4. The 10 Commandments are obviously more specific and detailed than the "law of love" mentioned above. Is there any other difference? Do they conflict in any way with the Law of Love? If so, which Commandment(s) is/are inconstent with love? Did God want for any of them, including the Sabbath, to be observed for any other reason than love — His love for His earthly children and their love for Him?
5. Is there any necessary conflict between the 10 Commandments and grace? Does grace include only justification, or is there such a thing as sanctification by grace? If so, does it include grace to live increasingly in harmony with the them?
6. What does Paul mean by writing that we are not "under law" but "under grace" in Rom 6:14? Under condemnation of the Law? Under jurisdiction of the Law? Under the law as a means of being justified? Are Christians "under" the law of love? If so, would that be any better or easier than being under the Law? If so, how so?
7. What does Paul mean by "under grace" in Rom 6:14? Is "under grace" as a means of being justified?
7. What does Paul mean in Rom 8:3, 4 by saying that the "righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit?" What law is he referring to? What does he mean by "fulfilled?" What does he mean by "walking" after the Spirit?"
Would short, thoughtful biblical answers to these questions be helpful? I would be especially interested in Preston's response.
Just one more question perhaps, to add to those mentioned above.
Was Adam and Eve under Grace or under Law in the Garden of Eden when God said to them: "Do not eat of the the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"? After all, God did establish a Law when He asked them to obey. [Gen 2:17 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.] Remember that this was even before the fall. A point to also note here is that the Sabbath (and union of man and wife in marriage) were established BEFORE the fall at Creation: In the beginning.
♥T
Yes, God did tell Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He also gave the command to be fruitful and multiply. But it only says that God RESTED on the seventh day because he had completed his work, period. There is no command whatsoever for Adama and Eve to rest on that day, which was their first day of being, but the seventh day of God's creative acts. He gave them only two commands, mentioned above, but not one word about "rest" on a day. In addition, there is not one single record of anyone observing a day of rest until Sinai, despite Adventists constant claim it was given at Creation. Why is the Bible corrupted by such additions? Is the record insufficient without man's adding to it?
…And that's why God didn't remind us to 'be fruitful and multiply' – we seem to enjoy obeying that one ☺; but have forgotten the Sabbath like Israel, hence His reminder to REMEMBER the Sabbath Day TO KEEP IT HOLY. Seventh-day Adventists are the called as 'proclaimers' of this truth and are called to also preach the Sabbath message to REMEMBER its significance which bears the name and seal of God's authority, sovereignity and dominion as Creator, Ruler, Custodian, Blessed Redeemer and the Giver of true Rest. Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of Creation!
Another point to note regarding the pre-Sinai establishment of the Sabbath is found in Exod 16:28,29,30 And the LORD said to Moses, “How long will you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws? See! The LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.” So the people rested on the seventh day.
This was asked of them even BEFORE Sinai which comes later in Exod 19:1. This proves yet again that the Holy Seventh-day Sabbath found in the Decalogue and upheld and heralded by Seventh-day Adventists IS an Eternal Precept established right 'In the Beginning' by God Himself before the Fall of man: and who better to establish such – but the Almighty Creator Himself. Obedience to the Law of God IN CHRIST JESUS by His GRACE is our response to His working in our lives through the Holy Spirit. Now that is a really BIG DEAL!
♥T
An additional note to my previous post in response to Mrs Nelson's post that mentions God's command to Adam and Eve to be 'fruitful and multiply'.
I might as well add that the homosexual community won't be obeying 'the fruitful and multiply' part and would be the exception in this regard.
♥T
Elaine
Looks like this topic may have pretty much run its course, but if you check back in, I have a few short questions for you.
According to Genesis 2:3, when God rested (ceased) from His work of creating the world on the seventh day, He "blessed" and "sanctified" (set apart for a sacred purpose) the seventh day as the Sabbath.
1. For whom did He set the day apart for a sacred purpose? For Himself, or for human beings whom He had created? Or perhaps for both?
2. If it was for human beings, does it seem likely or unlikely that Adam and Eve were aware of what He had done?
3. If they were aware of it, does it seem likely unlikely that they would either assume or be told that He desired for them to observe it?
I would be interested in your answers to these questions if you tune in here again and have the time and inclination to respond. In the meantime, take care and Godbless.
Assuming the creation story is semi-factual, perhaps the Creator's 'rest' meant a decision from on high to stop the creative process (I dare not say evolution) after Primates had been given thumbs?
Question #2 above is profound.
No idea as to what they knew, or when, because scribes had not been invented.
Question #3 can only be answered after answering #2.
"Rest" has different meanings. Consider an attorney in court when he has completed his statements: "I rest my case," meaning it has been completed.
We have no record of a written language prior the Egyptian hierglyphics which have been dated ca 3,000 B.C. The first law code, Hammurabi's , ca. 1750 B.C. The Law received by Moses, ca. 1220 B.C. However, the earliest possible date for the Law, or Torah put in writing was no earlier than ca. 600 B.C., and that is known as the Priest's edition, as there are several different accounts of much of the Torah as demonstrated in the two creation stories, the two flood stories, and others.
It is inconceivable that these stories were orally passsed down through so many generations exactly as originally told. There were interpretations of the story-tellers, editions and deletions, and of course, a great deal of hyperbole that defies credibility.
Not until the Law given to Moses was sabbath ever a command to humans. It was given in recognition of their former servitude as slaves and their exodus from the slave-holders, giving them a day free from work/ The Priests, responsible for writing the Law and the Creation story in Gen. 1 were intent on emphasizing the Israelites of the Law which was the reason for their captivity.
However, in the Sinai, the Israelites, former slaves, were a largely agrarian economy and the necessary chores required care for their animals every day; the priests also had to perform their duties as well; the women were not mentioned in the Fourth Commandment and they still had their usual chores. Was their a great deal of change on any day, given the agrarian economy in which they lived?
Having taught Sabbath school class many years I have often asked the question..Ary you saved? I never get much comment from that question. Some will say Yes, but…
Maybe we should preach on Grace and saved by faith in Jesus a lot more often so all will know weather they are saved or not.
My Bible says believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved. To me it's simple. Yes I am a sinner as we all are. I know Jesus paid the price for me. It gives me great peace. Prais God for what He has done for us all.
Steve
Preston,
You have given an admirable explanation of the two covenants. That they are still confusing to Adventists is most apparent. Do other Christian churches have such difficulty? If not, why not? Could it be because so many Adventist doctrines are taken directly from the Old Testament? I believe that is one very important reason. When the distinctive doctrines of Adventism can only be shown from the Pentateuch, or the Old Covenant, it compounds the necessity for repeated explanations.
If one restricts his reading for doctrines of the Christian church (how can one find Christian doctrines from Judaism?) there will be no problems. Paul then becomes crystal clear: the Old Covenant was fulfilled at the cross and we are now living under the New Covenant. To live under the Old Covenant is to deny the efficacy of the cross. All the texts above simply reinforce this.
For the Jews sabbath was almost central; all life revolved around its proper observance; one can see this by the multitudes of activities that must be done or prohibited surrounding the sabbath. Paul rejected Judaism as a way to be accepted by Christ: he did away with circumcision–the first mark of a Jew– and with that, all other practices were also done away with. The very few remaining were given in several places in the NT and only involved food offered to idols, blood, and fornication.
He also put the Law in its proper place: to guide one to Christ and since He has come, we are no longer bound by the Law but freed from its demands. There is no other reason why Adventistism has consistently since its birth been faced with difficulties in explaining this New Covenant is because of insistence that sabbath is still binding. There is nothing in the New Testament that Christians are to observe any day, thus the confusion and it will continue as long as the refusal to take Paul just as he is.
Elaine,
Thanks for your kind words.
However, I disagree with your conclusion: "There is nothing in the New Testament that Christians are to observe any day, thus the confusion and it will continue as long as the refusal to take Paul just as he is."
Hebrews 4 does exactly that, with specificity regarding the 7th day, in the context of creation:
"1 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2 For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did not share the faith of those who obeyed.[a] 3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
These passages, in addition to Genesis 2:1-2, Exodus 20:8-14, and Revelation 14:7 (along with multiple texts that document Sabbath-keeping), that, in my opinion, show the constancy of the Sabbath throughout the history of the world. In my opinion, that is the best approach to ground the Adventist belief in Sabbath observance.
I believe, the Holy Spirit will lead seekers to see the clarity of God's intent for the Sabbath, which spans covenants and lasts, I believe, into eternity.
Then note in my last post should read: "(along with multiple texts that document CHRIST'S Sabbath-keeping)."
Thanks.
Preston, that is almost invariably the retort when sabbath observance is questioned: Christ observed the sabbath.
Well, yes and no. Why was he accused of breaking the sabbath? Who judged him? Who decides proper Sabbath observance?
Jesus was born, lived and died a good Jew. He was never called a Christian, as Christianty was born following the Resurrection. Jesus was born, lived and died a Jew: was circumcised, observed the dietary rules, and all the other feasts and celebrations of Judaism. Should we observe all of them as he did? Where are Christians told to observe the Jewish feasts and festivals of which Sabbath is included in Lev. 23?
Where are Christians instructed to observe any day as holy? Why would Paul say that no man should be judged on the observance of days? Or that we are not bound by the Law but now freed from that which enslaved us? To what Law was he referring?
Adventists would not have known of the sabbath and its many rules from the NT. They had to add both the day and its many and proper rules from the OT. There was never a day for Christians to be considered holy and it cannot be shown from the NT which are the Christians guide, not the OT. If the NT is insufficient for Christian living and doctrine, what should a church be called if it is a mixture of both?
This is why Adventists have been called cults–neither fish nor fowl.
Elaine,
It would seem to me that the retort, "Christ observed the Sabbath," is non-trivial. In fact, as Christians and followers of Christ, it would seem that anything Jesus did would bear significance, including how Christ kept the Sabbath (including healing and helping).
The New Testament passage from the Apostle Paul (the original radical grace preacher), "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works,[e] just as God did from his," seems, to me to be all encompassing (i.e., "for the people of God , for anyone . . . ").
What is it about Hebrews 4 that is unconvincing to you on that point?
Elaine and to everyone,
Too many (from both sides of this issue) seem to fall into the same trap. That is (Side A) claiming either we are still under the law and obligated to keep the Sabbath OR (Side B, claiming without the law, there is no need to observe the Sabbath.
The "third way" is to to be led by the Spirit into the will of God. This requires purposeful and continual submission of our will.
Paul saying that we should not judge others regarding their observance of days does not make our knowledge of the Sabbath a moot point. Observing the Sabbath is, to me, both a blessing to me and an acknowledgment of submission to God and my understanding of His will for mankind. As the Sabbath is a memorial to creation, observing it reminds me how all this (i.e., life on earth) began.
There have been and are many blogs on this site which prove why that is necessary.
How is the New Covenant superior to the Old if all the rules and Law is still in effect as it was under the Old Covenant? What is new about it?
I agree when you say that "observing the Sabbath is, to me, both a blessing and acknowledgement of submission to God." Presuming that your belief is the correct one for everyone else does not submit to Paul's statement of "letting everyone be persuaded in his own mind." Does that infer that there is only one "mind" on this? To me, if flies in the face of his statement in more than one place about the Law and mentions special yearly, monthly and sabbath days. What are the conclusions that you draw from his statements? Was he referring to something other than the Jewish practice of the timing of the many special occasions? What is your take on these:
"One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fullly convinced in his own mind."
"Therefore, let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day–things which are a mere shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ."
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second….When he said 'A new covenant;' He has made the first obsolete."
"He takes away the first in order to establish the second."
What are there differences between the former, or first covenant, and the new one, or second covenant? If there is proof that the sabbath is necessary, what texts from the NT support that position?
Elaine,
The New Covenant does not make us God's unto ourselves. We are to be led by the Holy Spirit, not the law, to live in the will of God. It is inconceivable to me that the Holy Spirit will lead us in a way that is contrary to God's will or law.
The difference between covenants is that in the New, we are, thru Christ, reconciled to God, by grace. We can speak directly to The Father, in Christ's name. If we confess our sins, they will be forgiven, and we will take on the righteousness of Christ, who is our perfection. The difference is that we are free in Christ, from the yoke of the law — and its death penalty. We are saved — if we accept Christ as Lord and Savior.
The key to the New Covenant is not freedom from the law. The key is being led by the Spirit — which frees us from the law. Without the Spirit, we need the law, as we are sinful and willful (1 Timothy 1: 9-15).
The point isn't whether the Sabbath is "necessary." The point is, do we love God and seek to do His will? The point is whether we are in love enough to allow the Holy Spirit to lead us.
The New Covenant is superior because it is love-driven. Grace and the law may lead us to lead similar lives in terms of behavior. But, under grace, the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, long-suffering, etc.) will flow through us.
If you (or anyone is not convinced) of the need and benefit of Sabbath observance, that is between God, the Holy Spirit, and you. I simply ask, again, what is it about Hebrews 4 that is unclear, burdensome, or unconvincing? It's not about law; it's about entering into His rest.
Preston,
These last few blogs are appearing more and more to be a spiritual catharsis of sorts for you, as you continue to unpackage the logic of the 2 Covenants. Your terminology and the attending logic is getting clearer by the response.
Preston,
I also believe that Hebrews 4 is explaining the meaning of sabbath: we are to enter into God's rest. It is a relationship, not a day which is important. It is a new understanding brought in by Jesus, not realized in the original intent and meaning of the Fourth Commandment.
Elaine,
Well, I'll let you explain that to my wife if I choose to arbitrarily celebrate a wedding anniversary of my choosing . . .
Celebrating our anniversary is done out of love not obligation — but I'm sure she appreciates it (and believes I love her more) if I get the day right (especially if she reminds me).
Smiles.
Point made. Does sabbath have the same meaning in Exodus as it does in Hebrews 4?
Is Sabbath of equal importance in the Old as the New covenant? Given the multiple times sabbath is referred to in the OT, is it of the same importance in the NT?
Is your marriage more important than the date of your wedding? If you had to be away (military service) for several years and unable to celebrate your wedding anniversay, are you still married? Millions of partners (usually men) forget their wedding date, but are they still married? Is the symbol more important than what it represents?
Help me to understand your interpretation of how sabbath is used and meant in Heb. 4.
Elaine,
Your questions about the Old & New Covenant will never find satisfaction as long as you use a model that is not Biblical. The only real differnce between the Old & New Covenant's is who makes the promise to keep the law for the salvation of the human family. The Old Covenant is Israel making the promise to do "all that the Lord has spoken." Exodus 19:8; 24:7 The New Covenant is God's promise thru His Son, Jesus Christ, to keep the law on our behalf.
God knew that Israel would fail to keep their promise to keep His law, so He had Moses institute the Sanctuary Service to teach the New Covenant to the Jews. Everything in the Sanctuary Services pointed to one facit or another or Christ's work of redemption for mankind, including the Feast Days.
So, if there is a difference between the law / Sabbath when it comes down to the Old and New Covenants, it motivation. The Old Covenant is based on the fear of punishment, and the desire for a reward. While the New Covenant is based on love and appreciation for the free of salvation purchased by the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Sabbath keeping in the Old Covenant is resting for our works, as opposed to Sabbath keeping under the New Covenant which is resting in the completed work of creation / salvation / the hope of eternal restoration.
Peace
Regarding Colossians 2:16:
This passage has been incorrectly been used as a license to eat pork, drink liquor and trample the Fourth Commandment, by some; and by others to argue against the Ten Commandments and our Health Message or even worse still, to the extent that ‘cheap grace’ or presumptuous sinning is advocated; to put it in a nutshell. Col 2:14 clearly refers to ‘Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances’ which was ‘contrary to us’. It was THIS that was ‘nailed to the cross’ thereby fulfilling them in the antitype Christ Jesus by His death on the Cross. These were ceremonies pointing to Him in the symbols and types of the Old Covenant.
Heb 9:1 reveals that the ‘first covenant’ had these ‘ordinances’ added to it in the form of symbolic ceremonies and types which pointed to Messiah. Here (Heb 9:1-9) we find that Paul begins his discussion of the law focussing rather, on the ‘ordinances which were added’ and NOT the Ten Commandments, which were written by the finger of God on tablets of stone (Ex 31:18). In these verses Paul makes no reference to the Ten. In Heb 9:10 he concludes by describing these ‘ordinances’ as ‘carnal’. The Law of God as seen in the Ten Commandments is NOT carnal but spiritual (Rom 7:14). He therefore speaks not of the spiritual Law (Ten Commandments) but of the carnal ordinances which were added to the law ‘because of transgressions’ (Gal 3:19). Col 2:20,21 states that if we are ‘dead with Christ’ then we are not ‘subject to ordinances’ and that we ought not to touch, taste and handle these which have been abrogated at the Cross. That is the ORDINANCES that were ADDED to the LAW and written by the hand of Moses (2Chron 33:8, Ex 24:4, Deut 31:24, Deut 29:21 – note: the CURSE of the law, Deut 30:10). Ps 19:7 calls the LAW of GOD PERFECT yet the ordinances on the other hand refer to the law of Moses as containing curses, the latter which was NOT placed in the ark with the Ten Commandments. To conflate these two and assert that Paul made no distinction is not in line with ALL that Paul wrote.
I should point out at this stage that we seem to have zoned in on the CURSE of sin as a result of transgressing the Law and assume that it is the TOTALITY of what it stands for in this regard. This is not the way even the Old Testament writers viewed God’s Law and even the ceremonial laws for that matter which became a curse because of disobedience and rebellion, yet it was NOT only about curses, there were many good teachings and blessings associated with in these ordinances which came to an end, of course – at the Cross. This can be seen when we look at the broader picture like many OT writers. Therefore we need to look at who Paul writes to. Those who caught up in attempting salvation by works by subscribing to ordinances of handwriting which after the Cross was a curse to those who still clung to it and not Christ only. Of course there are always those who will try to keep the Ten Commandments on their own but this does not negate the broader picture of a Holy, Righteous, Perfect, Honourable, Worthy, (Ex 24:12, Ps 1:2, Ps 119:1, Ps 40:8, Ps 119:18, Ps 119:29 – Graciously?, Ps 119:72, Ps 119:77, Ps 119:26 – make void?, Ps 119:42 – law is Truth?, Law. Ps 119:174 distinguishes the difference between salvation and the role of the Law. The first refers to ‘thy salvation Lord’ and then the Law is called ‘delight’. They are two separate doctrines. The Law cannot administer salvation; but salvation does not in turn make void the Law. Both have distinct functions: both come from God.
Heb 9:10 from verse one echoes these sentiments: “Heb 9:10 but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.” The handwriting which literally translates as ‘something written by hand’ on parchment (ceremonial law) in contrast to God writing the Ten Commandments on stone which Paul proclaims (Heb 8:10, Heb 10:16) and quotes from Jeremiah (Jer 31:3) that they are written on our hearts through Christ our Lord by virtue of His Grace through the Holy Spirit and the Gal 2:20 experience which, I might add, affords the believer the declaration of Righteousness (by faith).
♥T
Oops some typo's:
Jer 31:3 should be Jer 31:33
Ps 119:42 should be Ps 119:142
Ps 119:26 should be Ps 119:126
But, if you follow the Biblical distinction between the 10 in the ark and the rest outside, then the ceremonial law includes much more than just the sacrifices and ceremonies. It is literally everything except the 10 commandments. It is much better to accept that what was nailed to the cross was our debt, not the law in any form.
One cannot find the law against eating pork in the Ten Commandments. It comes from the 600+ rules found in the Pentatuech which was given to the Israelites. If these rules were no longer valid, how can the clean-unclean meats be considered valid? Or, has it been done on a "pick-and-choose" method with no discernable criteria? Why are the dietary or Kosher laws still valid but the clean-unclean period for both males and females is no longer valid? Please explain on the basis of biblical exegesis.
Please explain with Biblical exegesis where Jesus ate pork! …and where Jesus (as a Jew) did NOT follow the Kosher 'eating' laws…
Remember this is not in the context of what Paul addresses with the Gentiles in Col 2:16. I only said that some USE this verse as an excuse…
♥T
Trevor,
I don't eat pork and don't recommend it.
How do you deal with these texts (Romans 14)?
Preston,
Romans 14:1-3 is talking about food offered to idols… not flesh food (beef, pork, chicken, or fish…etc.). In the time of Paul, the pagan priests would take the food brought to the temple for sacrifice, and the priest would take to the market and sell the food. So the issue is this, should a Christian refrain from eating food offered to idols. There were those that said… definately. These are those whom Paul identified as the weak. Then there were those that knew that the idol / temple / pagan priest could not effect perfectly good food simply because of how it got to the priest / market. Paul identifies those as the strong.
The principle at issue then is that the strong are not to judge the weak because they are "fanatical" about what kind of food we should or should not be eating, or whether or not we want to observe the feast days. Romans 14 is about judging others who do not necessarily see like / agree with you on matters that are not essential to salvation. I have used vs 17 many times to back off those who were pressing me to be a vegetarian. Interestingly enough, when I notified them that I had finally went to the vegetarian diet, some 13 years ago, then they wanted to take some kind of credit for my decision making.
Judge not! That's what this passage is all about… we all have to stand before God in judgment… first things first…
Trevor, please re-read my question which was for a bibilical exegesis where the kosher laws were still valid in the NT after the Resurrection and with the first conversions of Gentiles. I did not ask for a text where Jesus ate pork! He was certainly not a vegetarian, but no good Jew ate pork then, and none to this day.
laffal (and Trevor),
That is what I see in that passage.
A subtle, but dangerous enticement of a law-driven focus is to judge the actions of others and to compare their actions and motives with ours. What the Spirit has led us to and the path that we have taken may be (and is likely) different than others. Although the destination may be the same, God deals with us based on our hearts and His grace. Jesus is the only way.
This is why no works of the law are adequate for our salvation. Again, it is not the law that is problematic; it is us.
We have no righteousness of our own, only His. He is the only one righteous enough to judge, forgive, save, or convict.
Remember that while men have been cautioned NOT to judge: God can and will.
♥T
Trevor,
"For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son," John 5:22.
This is why it is imperative to be in Christ. Christ satisfied the requirements of the law by His life and death. The Father's law must be satisfied. Christ is our friend, our advocate, our judge, and our Saviour.
This is why the New Covenant and its provisions for grace are vital to our salvation. It is difficult if not impossible to have a loving, trusting relationship with a judge who holds the power of life and death over us. Even if a keep the law out of a spirit of fear and expected reward for my works, it is for nought. It is far easier and authentic to have a loving relationship, born of gratitude, with a Savior, advocate, and friend. We will seek to please Him from a heart of love, rather than fear.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:1.
It is very good news.
Amen! Brother Preston, Amen! I'm with you on this one…
♥T
Brother Preston
Sir, while I did fully concur with you last post I would like to make another comment which you have alluded to somewhat. Paul in Rom 4:13-14 [Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. Rom 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.], is quite clear regarding the 'promise' and Righteousness by Faith in the OT which would obviously teaches Grace in the OT. Christians today relate to that same promise rather than the issues Paul raises with the Galations etc. While these NT admonishings may give us food for thought and direct our focus to the Provision God has provided in Christ instead of works orientated salvation, they have little direct significance to us who have NOT entered into such a covenant for it has been fulfilled in Christ at the Cross. By default, this side of the Cross, we enter into the Promise just the same but in Messiah Jesus oue Lord and Saviour. Again, I say, that the fulfilled types and symbols of Messiah have been ABROGATED by His death on the Cross and by his precious blood. His Righteousness is imputed and imparted to us and transforms our lives through the Spirit's working in us.
These verses of late have caught my attention and speak for themselves regarding the LAW of…..FAITH? ☺. Here they are:
Rom 3:20 Inasmuch as, by works of law, shall no flesh be declared righteous before him,––through law, in fact, is discovery of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now, apart from law, a righteousness of God hath been manifested, borne witness to by the law and the prophets,––
Rom 3:22 A righteousness of God, through faith in [Jesus] Christ, unto all that have faith; for there is no distinction,––
Rom 3:23 For, all, have sinned and fall short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being declared righteous freely by his favour through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:––
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth as a propitiatory covering, through faith in his blood, for a showing forth of his righteousness, by reason of the passing–by of the previously committed sins,
Rom 3:26 In the forbearance of God,––with a view to a showing forth of his righteousness in the present season, that he might be righteous even when declaring righteous him that hath faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Where, then, the boasting! It is excluded. Through what kind of law? Of works? Nay! but through a law of faith:
In these profound writings of Paul I see the 'balance' and rightful place of God's law in all of this especially interms of the 'Promise' to Abraham. I have also found, out of interest, that BEFORE Sinai (about 3 months perhaps), but after leaving Egypt God taught the Israelites to observe the Sabbath in the experience of the 'manna' from heaven. So pre-Sinai, the Sabbath was still a binding part of those who follow the God of Heaven.
…And this was BEFORE Sinai.
Exod 16:25 Then said Moses––Eat ye it today, for, a sabbath, is today, unto Yahweh,––today, ye shall not find it in the field.
Exod 16:26 Six days, shall ye gather it,––but, on the seventh day, a sabbath, it shall not be therein.
Exod 16:27 And it came to pass, on the seventh day, that there went forth some of the people to gather,––but they found not.
Exod 16:28 Then said Yahweh unto Moses,––How long have ye refused to keep my commandments and my laws?
I'm not saying that you say the Sabbath is made void. I'm saying that we can't use Paul to detract from the obligation for the observance of the Law of God and the Sabbath. (Obviously all this in Christ and by His indwelling through the Holy Spirit)
♥T
Brother Trevor,
Where I disagree with you is the term "obligation for the observance of the Law and the Sabbath."
My understanding of the New Covenant is that "obligation and law" have been replaced with "freedom and love." Numerous times, already cited, along with the texts from Romans you've listed in you last post, we are reminded that in Christ, we are freed from the law — written and engraved in stones (2 Corinthians 3:6,7) and that through no works of the law shall any flesh be justified (Romans 3: 20). The law of the Old Covenant can do nothing but condemn us to death. It is through Christ's blood sacrifice that I am freed from the penalty of death. I can do NOTHING to EARN my salvation. If that is true, of what value is "obligation" to the law?
As God's law is written in our hearts, we will serve Him out of love and gratitude, not obligation. The purpose of the law is to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3:24-26). Being led by His Spirit, we will walk in His way, not out of legal obligation, but through faith (like that of Abraham) that His way is best.
In Christ, I cannot, again, be bound by the yoke of the law (Galatians 5:1). To do so, in my mind, is to say that what Christ did for me on the Cross is not enough, but that it needs the "help" of my works (Galatians 2:21). In Christ, the law is not for me, but for the reprobate (1 Timothy 1: 9-15). Indeed, it will be by the law that all whose sins are uncovered by the blood of Christ will be judged — and convicted. Why would I want any part of THAT?
The Sabbath predates Sinai is as old as this world. I keep it because I love God and the Holy Spirit leads me to believe it is God's good will for me. It also, we believe, has implications for our loyalty to God in the time of the end. Even that loyalty will not last (or, I believe, be acceptable to Him) if based on obligation (works of the law). I need something deeper and stronger than the law to hold me in the time of trouble.
Love, not law, is the strongest force in the universe.
Look to the Sanctuary…There lies the answer. (As SDA's we should all know this).
In the outer court is Justification. In the inner court is Sanctification. And in the Most Holy Place is the Mercy Seat of GOD for the Judgement. Repentance is both asking&recieving forgiveness and changing your ways. Or as Revelation 22:11 puts it- and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. ….Notice the 2 things mentioned. Those who have passed their Judgement are both Righteous (Justified by the blood of the lamb) and Holy (Sanctified by His Spirit into a changed life).
First comes the GRACE, then as a result of the GRACE comes the LAW. As the Scriptures put it-
If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 14:15
Or as John explains- For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. Notice, His Commandments are NOT grievous if we love Him.
We keep His LAW as a result of recieving His Grace. The two go hand-in-hand. One (willingly keeping His LAW) is a result of the other (recieving freely His GRACE). This is the test…
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. Revelation 22:14 … Now how does one interpret this verse? Are we saved and have a right to the tree of life BECAUSE of commandment keeping? NO-but rather the commandment keeping is a result of getting your heart right with God as a result of Grace. As in the layout in the Sanctuary-Grace first, for there is no other way to be saved, but then the inner court comes next, a changed life.
A glimpse after Grace (1st compartment) into the 2nd & 3rd compartment from Isaiah 55:7-
*Let the wicked forsake his way,
*and the unrighteous man his thoughts:
*and let him return unto the LORD,
*and he will have mercy upon him;
*and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Look to His Sanctuary– Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: Psalm 77:13
Hey, Brother Preston
I appreciate your time with me one this one. I see it more as a difference in perspective with regards to our call to obedience to God IN CHRIST JESUS with love dominating this experience. You are right about God's Love. My perspective is that they (law and love) are both a part of who God is and playing down pne over the other isn't really necessary as they (law and love) have distinctive roles in God's plan for all of us.
Rom 13:8 Do not owe anyone anything—except to love one another. For the one who loves another has fulfilled the Law.
Rom 13:9 For the commandments, “You must not commit adultery; you must not murder; you must not steal; you must not covet,” and every other commandment are summed up in this statement: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”
Rom 13:10 Love never does anything that is harmful to its neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the Law.
In [Lev 19:18] we see the ‘love your neighbour ‘ which comes as a summary [Rom 13:9] of the six commandments which deals with our fellow man. Note that NO ceremonial laws are mentioned specifically in the verses from [Rom 13:9] but those found in the Ten. Then also we have to consider that the word ‘law’ is the same word used in [Matt 5:18] when Jesus affirmed it, in his ‘heaven or earth will pass…not one jot or tittle’ words, regarding it. In the context of these verses he emphasizes that he has not come to ‘destroy the law’ but to fulfill [Matt 5:17]. In fact in the NT the word ‘law’ νόμος nomos is used for all the ‘law’ references from what I have seen which includes the references Jesus and Paul make when speaking of ‘law’. In [Matt 5:19] Jesus uses the word ‘commandments’ ἐντολή entole when obviously referring to the Ten. There is a distinction with regards to the Ten Commandments/Law usage in the NT New Deal and the Ceremonial law/Ten Commandments/civil/domestic/health laws Old Covenant combo. Although Paul makes no direct distinction between them, he does mention them separately in [Eph 2:15]: Law, commandments and ordinances. We know that all three references are not made 'void' but only the 'ordinances of handwriting' [Col 2:14] and the 'agreement' of the Old Covenant itself which was abrogated, clauses and all.
Again, I say, It is the ordinances pointing to Christ which was ‘nailed to the cross’ AND our debt as sinners. The only way I see it that the that the Law can itself be ‘nailed to the cross’ is, if Jesus is personified as the Law: which I have no qualms about. When someone is acquitted or found not guilty, the law which charges them still remains ‘the law’ and remains there for all to obey. HOW one is able to obey God IS what makes the difference. Own works? No way! Christ's works? Hip Hip Hooray! In other words, the OC or Old Deal had a Ten Commandment ‘clause’ included in its formulation which, although it predated Sinai, formed part of the legal transaction agreed upon by God and the Israelites at Sinai. The LAW reveals God’s character which is unquestionably dominated by LOVE and can rightfully be called the LAW OF LOVE or LAW OF LIBERTY. It is here perhaps where I would say that we see it in a different ‘perspective’, rather than where we disagree. I see love in the law of God and God’s love for us. WE OBEY because Christ Obeyed – because of Love. Are we saved by it? NAY! Is it the basis of what we are judged by, even for those who bypass the judgement stage of the judgement process by vitue of Christ's merits? YAY!
In [1Thess 4:1-2] he makes request on how we should please and walk with God and of the Commandments giving to them by Jesus. In the following verses Paul then expresses the sentiments of the Ten commandments in referring us our love for God and our love for man. Example – fornication is a sin which offends God [1Thess 4:3]. Then is [1Thess 4:6] he says let no man defraud his brother. This is in essence what the Ten Commandments express. Bottom line: the Law has NO redemptive attributes for us to be saved. The Cross has and does. Although I might as well add that Jesus obeyed the Law and it is His obedience or keeping of the Law or His 'works' that saves us. This cannot be avoided. It is critical to receiving His Righteousness and been 'declared' NOT GUILTY on His merits of course.
The Law upholds God’s Love and Justice and Righteousness. The Cross displays His Love and Justice and Righteousness. When one says: “God is Love”, it would by default include the Law as a part of His Love, which represents His Righteousness and Character. Lastly, we obey God in Christ Jesus and are called to keep the Commandments of God in Christ Jesus [Rev 12:17, Rev 14:12, John 14:15, John 14:21, John 15:10, ]. Note John 14:21 – Is this Love or what?
I will hopefully make another post on how I think we obey in Christ…(aka – imputed and imparted righteousness which actually from my perspective enhances His wonderful LOVE and LAW)
♥T
Brother Trevor,
This discussion is what I hoped the article would prompt. It is vital that we a re-search the scriptures, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, to understand what is intended.
For me it is, now, very straightforward. In the context of Matthew 5:17, Christ said that He came not to destroy, but to fulfill His Father's law. Until that was done, heaven and earth would pass before one jot or tittle would pass from the law (the 10 Commandments). On the cross, Christ declared, "It is finished," meaning the fulfillment of the law — and the sacrificial death of the Lamb of God. In terms of works, everything necessary for our salvation had been (and is) accomplished. After His resurrection, just prior to His ascension, Christ said to His disciples, that He had done what He came to do: fulfill God's (Old Covenant) law — which is not voided, providing the payment that law demands ("the ministry of death, written and engraved in stones," 1 Corinthians 3:6-7, Romans 6:23), and, thus, a means of salvation for us (breakers of that law). We are called to keep Christ's commandments (the law of love, John 13:34, Galatians 5:14), to be "in Christ," who kept His Father's commandments on our behalf (John 14:15, John 14:21, John 15:10). Our salvation is by grace, through faith in Christ, who has reconciled us with the Father (2 Corinthians 5:18, Colossians 1:20).
I believe that, in the time of the end — when the mark of the beast and his image is bestowed on those who worship a false God of tradition, the Sabbath will be an identifier of those who worship the creator God. A difference between the two groups will be those who honor the Sabbath (along with other identifiers such as not bowing down to idols, Exodus 20:4, Daniel 3:8-12), sanctified by the creator God at the close of creation (Genesis 2:1-2), consistent with the first angel's message: “Fear God and give glory to him for the hour of his judgment is come; and worship him who made the heaven and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters,” Revelation 14:7. At the time of the end, when the mark of the beast is bestowed on false worshippers, true worshippers will be identified, in part, by those who are both in Christ and have chosen loyalty to the Father (Rev 12:17, Rev 14:12).
In short, at the time of the end, those worshipping the creator God are identified by having faith in Christ and keeping the commandments of the Creator (whose law Christ kept perfectly). Our commandment keeping, at that time, is an identifier. However, the means of our salvation is by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ.
Thanks for listening.
I believe that one of the identifiable problems with the concept of obedience comes from our interpretation of what it means to keep the commandments. We have tended largely to automatically define the term "keep" as "obedience." Why I believe that it is problematic is that, in terms of how God saves the sinner, one's relationship to the His law is everything.
God gave the law in stone for the most part, as a transcript of His character of love / holiness to convict sinners of transgression, and by extension the sense of it's penalty, condemnation. In the design was the purpose of developing a sense / need in the sinner for a Savior… Jesus… who would by God's oath / promise meet all of the demands of the law as the sinner's representative. Any attempt to obey the law (our general understanding of keeping it) for the purpose of obtaining / sustaining / retaining / maintaining our salvation is doomed to fail, and bring us under the ministry of death… the curse of the law.
When the sinner accepts Christ and His righteousness as a free gift, which established the law on our behalf, the law itself comes in the person of the Holy Spirit. If we walk in the Spirit, obedience will be as natural as God loving us.
So what's the big deal about "keeping the commandments"? The general concept of the original Hebrew / Greek terms used was in the idea of possession for a purpose: 1) to attend to carefully, take care of 1a) to guard 1b) metaphorically to keep, one in the state in which he is 1c) to observe 1d) to reserve: to undergo something. The 10 Commandments to the redeemed are a safeguard from failure, they illustrate how the redeemed life is to be lived, with the assurance that as we walk in the Spirit the righteousness of the law will be fulfilled in them. "Here are they!"
Laffal,
I like the way a farmer friend of mine described his relationship to God's law. It was like his livestock, he said. He gave them a huge pasture in which to live and graze. There were feeding stations with hay and supplemental foods that contained vitamin supplements and other things needed to keep them healthy. They had a large area within which to live as happily as cows can live. God's law was like the barbed-wire fence. Push against it and you get a small pain that warns you to stay inside. Push a lot harder and it breaks, allowing you to go outside where you are not protected and you become vulnerable to the dangers that await you out there. Like the cow I saw some weeks back that got out of the fence and stood for two days on an island in the middle of a raging, rain-swollen creek. It had nothing around to eat and bellowed so loudly you could hear it for a mile until the waters went down enough for it to wade out.
The way some Christians relate to God's law you'd think they were that cow on the island bellowing their blame at God for putting them there.
That works for me.